[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Jim Bell Interviewed in Anarchapulco

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:28:20 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  > So, they don't plead 'guilty', they get a trial 
> I hope that 77,000 don't plead guilty, per year; Maybe 4-5,000 will
> get a trial.  What about the rest?   
> >and they get
> > 3 times the sentence? That is still a big risk. Getting $3000
> > inflated dollars doesn't cover that risk at all it seems. 
> There is such a thing as "vindictive sentencing", which at least in
> theory shouldn't happen.  7.95 4. Vindictive Sentencing | Norton
> ToobyWhile that doesn't mean that it never does happen,

  but isn't that pretty much the basis of the whole system? 

  either confess to whatever they accuse you of, or they will add 5 new

  so you can confess to, say, smoking pot, and get two years, or you
  can go to trial for "smoking pot while being near a gun' and that will
  get you 20 years. You might win at the trial but the chances are
  (very) low and the stakes a lot higher. 

  I'd assume that's not "vindicative sentencing" because in the later
  case they are charging you with 'real crimes' and you are getting a
  'fair' trial. 

> lawyers will
> likely be on the lookout for instances of it.  Refusal to accept a
> plea agreement SHOULD not justify a higher sentence.
> >  "your idea can only work IF enough people don't plead guilty 
> What is 'enough people don't plead guilty'?  The way I see it, if as
> few as 5,000 more people (from 2500 currently) refuse to plead
> guilty, 

	yes, I assume there may be some critical mass number which may
	be relatively small. 

> the number of people who cannot be given a trial will go up
> dramatically.  I am thinking it will be hard to put on over 5,000
> trials.  So if 7,500 plead not guilty, some will have to be
> released.  Once the defendants see that the system is beginning to
> 'break', the rest will be encouraged to join in. 

	that's a possibility yes.

> It is true that the
> government has a big lever:  It could start giving out really good
> deals.  True, but the defendants will understand why those deals are
> being offered.  
> >AND the   state doesn't just keep them in jail waiting for a trial.
> Initially, this will address the Fed's system, not the states.

	yeah by 'state' I mean the government, the group of mafiosos who
	call themselves 'federal government' etc. 

> But
> the states could be next. And remember, that's the defendants'
> lawyers job.
> >  I don't think the part about getting enough people to cooperate can
>   be solved by offering them $3000.
>  Okay, that's an issue which needs to be resolved.   How much would
> it take?  Remember, the offer does not have to attract all the
> defendants. 

   yes, though I just realized I overlooked the calculation/got it
   wrong. If you have 10 millions and distribute them among 5000 people
   that's 2000 per person. I was thinking the $3000 figure came from 10
   millions divided by 70,000 people. So got a zero in math. 

   bottom line is, as far as I understand it, pleading not guilty is a
   high risk gamble and it doesn't look as if getting $3000 or
   $30000 or even $300000 is a reasonale price for risking say 10 MORE 
   years in jail. 

   so recapitulating : if a number of people agree to cooperate and
   demand a trial (even with no money incentive) that can throw a wrench
   in the system BUT the coordination required to do that seems to be a
   literal case of the so called prisioner's dilemma. 

   then, on the other hand, the bureaucratic 'legal' procedure may play
   a crucial role here. If people can plead not guilty but then change
   their mind then it may be possible for them to see if they can
   reach a big enouhg number to be effective? 


> Currently, somebody indicted in the Federal system
> probably has a 99%+ change of being convicted.  Change things so that
> probability drops to, say, 30% will be a major advance.
> > In other words, about 30 convictions for each actual trial.  I
> > am hopeful to drop this to maybe 1.5 to 2 convictions for each
> > actual trial. I don't believe that the Feds will be able to put on
> > more than about 5,000 trials, given their limited capacity.  Give
> > virtually every defendant a powerful motivation to demand a jury
> > trial, and I think the large majority of them will do so.  There
> > would still be plea agreements, but they will be on a far better
> > basis, for the defendants, than before. Jim Bell