Can't we just ENFORCE the law?!?

[WCCPHD]

I worked with a former AUSA years ago. He explained why they won't take cases. He said that their performance appraisals consist of one thing, conviction rate. They will not take a case unless its a "slam dunk" and better yet, one that will plead guilty without going to trial. Its simply a numbers game with the Federal Courts.

 

[LVSteve]

Most court systems can only try about 5% of the offenders we see. That means we have to focus on the worst of the worst, and that is assuming that there are enough prosecutors and defenders to deal with that load. My county has made a real effort to keep staffing up, and that takes a lot of money. Until about 17 months ago, we were not even close to competitive on salaries and had a hell of a time recruting for either side. Other counties are just having no luck, sometimes without regard to how much they pay. The lack of defense attorneys is being looked at as a civil rights violation in some places. And before you ask, just appointing folks who do other areas of practice is not a good idea - they are not competent in criminal defense and I have seen the aftermath of that, too.

Man, does this paragraph get to the root of some stuff.

First, I have no doubt that the lack of defense attorneys is a civil rights violation. This has been created by a court system at all levels where you are pretty much required to have an attorney by the legal cabal. I include the judges in this, because most were previously in the legal "industry". Yes, it is often said that someone who defends themself has a fool for a client, but is that always true?

Then you have the other public defender problem. Frankly, who wants to do the job. Very often they are dealing with clients who just don't want to go to be incarcerated and refuse to acknowledge that they are royally screwed because of what they did and the evidence against them. The public defender knows damned well their client is going away, it's just a matter of how long. But that is a loss to them, and people, especially Americans, HATE losing.

Fully enforcing all laws would require the current military defense budget, I suspect. But then who is going to take a job as a public defender knowing there is no plea bargaining, no chance of withdrawal/dismissal of the "pile on" charges*, and essentially no chance of a favorable outcome for their client or them. Remember, everyone in this country loves stats, and losers are losers, regardless of circumstances. To most people it doesn't matter that the public defender had no chance for the get go, he/she is still seen as a loser. Not many people want to be known as such, even if they are trying to maintain the scales of justice.
_____________________________________

* In the UK, the "pile on" charges, if severe enough, are not necessarily tried or dismissed but can remain "on file" for an indefinite period. I suspect that may not be possible in the US due to the various statutes of limitations. In the UK, it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide if there is a realistic chance of a conviction after an extended period. Even when the CPS decide to proceed, it is not unknown for a judge to look at the case and say, "Are you kidding, after all this time? Get out."

 

[biku324]

The primary reason for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Federal, state, and local task forces was the Feds didn't have the capacity to prosecute the drug trafficking cases they started, especially near borders or international sea- and airports. My last active year on a HIDTA task force board in isolated New Mexico, Feds (Customs, Border Patrol, sometimes DEA) referred a case every other day. That meant the state had to pick up prosecution, incarceration, then corrections costs. HIDTA provided money for state & local policing, the DA, and local jails, but nothing for state corrections.

Just my 4-county area was dumping 200 felons a year into a prison system than seldom exceeded 3500 beds. At the same time, probation & parole officers routinely carried caseloads of 125 clients each - guess how much monitoring and supervision that allows?

The Federal prosecution 'threshhold' at the time was 130 lbs of Marijuana, 1 lb of cocaine, and 1 pound of heroin.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you . . .

You sure do like to pick the fly-stuff out of the pepper.
Are you saying the bail bondsman himself tracks down the deadbeats who no-show? They don't hire someone to do that? Aren't those "bounty hunter" types called a skip-tracer? Or did I use the wrong term?
FWIW, the comment wasn't specifically about federal cases but rather about the revolving door justice system in general.
For a guy who's been so involved in law enforcement you make some of the most pro-criminal arguments of anyone I've ever seen.
Very peculiar.