> We would have serious doubts about this case if the encouragement of guilty pleas by offers of leniency substantially increased the likelihood that defendants, advised by competent counsel, would falsely condemn themselves. But our view is to the contrary, and is based on our expectations that courts will satisfy themselves that pleas of guilty are voluntarily and intelligently made by competent defendants with adequate advice of counsel, and that there is nothing to question the accuracy and reliability of the defendants' admissions that they committed the crimes with which they are charged.
I think it'd be pretty hard to argue today that offers of leniency have not "substantially increased" the likelihood, indeed the occurrence, of false guilty pleas. For example, here is another recent New York Times article about low quality drug tests leading to guilty pleas, which describes one county discovering, in an unchecked email inbox, hundreds of old lab notices failing to confirm those tests, ultimately leading to convictions being overturned - all guilty pleas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-...
A rich person who can afford to hire good lawyers. If the DA is offering 2 years for a case that could go 60 then the case is not strong.
The one area I would fight even if not rich is if I was accused of a sexual crime. In the USA this is a life sentence either way. The choice is between spending your life in jail if found guilty or living under a bridge if you plea.
We're distracted by issues like 'Black Lives Matter' - which have some merit but are also potentially divisive ...
When it seems there are some pretty low hanging fruit for improvement in this country.
If BLM wants to go after something, it's not bad cops - it's this insane part of the US justice system.
BLM was founded to deal with issue of lack of accountability for a variety of things which kill black people, which is a much wider issue than "bad cops" (especially if you mean, "bad" in the sense of perpetrating violence.) And its mission is much broader than even that, now.
In fact, the event which was the direct trigger for the formation of BLM was Zimmerman getting off for killing Trayvon Martin.
BLM's gotten a lot of attention in the context of police shootings, but that's more because those are the only issues where the media is paying attention to them, not because its their sole focus.
BLM in Toronto, given special status at the Pride parade - blocked the parade and demanded that Police not be allowed to attend next year, and held the entire parade hostage until a doc was signed indicating as much.
This is pretty offensive to most people for a lot of reasons.
This was by far their highest profile action in Canada, and I would argue it 'defines them' - policy, actions etc. far more so than whatever might exist on their 'homepage'. Whatever their 'manifesto' is, it's just something that a very tiny number of them happened to agree to at one point in time and happens to sit in their web page.
All of these movements have granules of authentic concern ... and given that bit of authenticity (because there is surely some police violence), I think sometimes it gives them cause to think that whatever is said and done 'in the name of' is somehow just.
I for one - think that overly aggressive policing is a symptom, not a cause, of deeper social problems, though I'll admit that their is surely a degree of circular feedback going on.
A crazy justice system that hands out 20 year sentences for light first offences - which subsequently adds to social decay - I think is a more of a systematic problem than overzealous policing.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/stanford-swimmer-brock-allen...