Home / Be The Change / Government Corruption / Due Process is Dead: A Staggering 95% of All Inmates in America Have Never Received a Trial

Due Process is Dead: A Staggering 95% of All Inmates in America Have Never Received a Trial


In the Land of the Free, one-quarter of the entire planet’s prison population, some 2.2 million people, currently languish behind bars; yet, an astonishing number of them — around 2 million — have never been to trial. Indeed, these figures categorically debunk the notion the criminal justice system in the United States maintains any semblance of its formation’s original intent: to ensure the guilty suffer punishment befitting their crimes, while the innocent avoid false conviction.

As the fundamental basis for the justice system in the United States, the Sixth Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Justice, as an untold — though no doubt, appalling — number can attest, has been utterly abandoned for the interests of the careless expedience, apathetic convenience, and unabashed profiteering of the U.S. prison-industrial machine.

“The reality is that almost no one who is imprisoned in America has gotten a trial,” explains award-winning journalist, Chris Hedges, in a recent Truthdig column. “There is rarely an impartial investigation. A staggering 97 percent of all federal cases and 95 percent of all state felony cases are resolved through plea bargaining.” Of those millions who bargained away their right to a trial by accepting plea deals, “significant percentages of them are innocent.”

Plea bargaining failed in its attempt to facilitate pragmatic justice seen in earlier courts, before the advent of the “adversary system and the related development of the law of evidence,” as John H. Langein once described. After the Civil War, as Judge Jed S. Rakoff explained in the New York Review of Books, rising crime and immigration rates began to burden the system and plea bargains offered an acceptable solution. In other words, court proceedings were at one time swift and simple, and though such expediency might have seemed a desirable quality in the past, the incontrovertible reality at present is a system wholly focused on speed at the expense of the necessary — in fact, imperative — assumption of innocence of the accused.

Indeed, for incontrovertible proof the court system no longer functions for the people — neither in its capacity to protect the public from the actual criminals, nor in its ostensible assurances no innocent person will be punished unfairly — take even a cursory glance at the trial system. Plea bargains have actualized a replacement of justice with a farcical, well-oiled machine of incarceration. “In actuality,” as Rakoff described,

“our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone.”

Of all federal criminal cases, “fewer than 3 percent went to trial. The plea bargains largely determined the sentences imposed.”

READ MORE:  Leaked Email Catches Michigan Officials Manipulating Lead Tests -- Eight Years Ago

Plea deals are presented to defendants as a way to escape the near certainty of a heavy-handed sentence should they be found guilty by a jury at trial — because defense attorneys’ and prosecutors’ most pressing goal is to prevent a trial in the first place. “Once you are charged in America,” Hedges said, “whether you did the crime or not, you are almost always found guilty.”

In part, such ‘unconditional guilt’ begat the need for The Innocence Project — “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.” Since 1989, there have been 337 DNA-related exonerations with individuals having served a combined total of around 4,606 unjustified years — an average of 14 years, each, before being freed. Of those 337 cases, 31 individuals, who had served over 150 combined years, “pled guilty to crimes they didn’t commit — usually seeking to avoid the potential for a long sentence (or a death sentence),” states The Innocence Project’s website.

“If all of the accused went to trial, the judicial system, which is designed around plea agreements, would collapse. And this is why trial sentences are horrific. It is why public attorneys routinely urge their clients to accept a plea arrangement. Trials are a flashing red light to the accused: DO NOT DO THIS. It is the inversion of justice.” Of the students he teaches in prison, those “who have the longest sentences are usually the ones who demanded a trial.”

While the rich and powerful, especially those associated with corporations and banks, are able to escape significant punishment — even when their crimes affect millions of people, such as those complicit in the 2008 financial crash — the poor, whether guilty or not, fall victim to this slanted system. As Hedges summarized:

“If you are poor, you will be railroaded in an assembly-line production, from a town or city where there are no jobs, through the police stations, county jails and courts directly into prison. And if you are poor, because you don’t have any money for adequate legal defense, you will serve sentences that are decades longer than those for equivalent crimes anywhere else in the industrialized world … Being poor has become a crime. And this makes mass incarceration the most pressing civil rights issue of our era.”

    • Stop posting your BS on this site. This is serious and you use it to boost your FB site. SHAME ON YOU!!!!

  • Dont sign the paper giving up your right to a trial. Problem solved.

    • lose at trial and u get the maximum sentance in most cases.and if u have a Public Pretender,i mean a Public Defender yur not going to get fairly represented….

    • One, hardly. The justice system is corrupt. They care about money. That’s it. Two, defend yourself. Who uses a public defender? Also if the public attorney just keeps telling you to take a plea, you can call for a new attorney until you have one that will actually defend you. If people cared about things like this, and actually did the research, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    • Ashton Haggitt You have obviously never been embroiled in the Injustice system .

    • Lmfaooo many times. Also went to school for it. Care to have actual knowledge or just what Facebook says

    • Some school that was.

    • Constitutional Law must have been right between lunch and recess.

    • Lmfaoooo please jason l, regale me with your constitutional knowledge. I read it almost daily for debate purposes so be prepared 😉

    • Ashton Haggitt You are naive at best

    • Ashton Haggitt it’s obvious you’ve never dealt with this. When you don’t take the plea deal, you don’t get to go home and get your case ready, you get to sit in jail for a few years while you’re “speedy trial” happens.

    • That would depend on the offense Dean. Nome of your comments really have anything to do with my post lol. If you WILLINGLY give up your rights, what do you have to complain about? Furthermore, ive been arrested numerous times and illegally detained numerous times. Know your rights. Get up and do something. Otherwise you’re all doomed to complain constantly without ever changing a thing.

    • So you read it every day? I work with it every day. You will not find a bigger opponent of our current judicial and political systems than me. I post a lot of the same stuff you have on your page. Your heart is in the right place but your mind has some catching up to do.

    • Hardly kid. There isn’t anything illegal about you willingly giving up rights. Whether or not you sit in jail for your offense is depending on the offense or crime. Furthermore, you’re obviously aware of the Constitution and it’s preamble? Then may i ask who’s responsibility is it to fix this mess? I know the answer and im sure you do as well. So the real question is, when do any of you actually stand your ground? You don’t out of fear. And thats understandable. However, no matter our disagreements on this issue, this issue and all related to government is entirely our fault. So while all of you blame “government” i suggest reading your only two responsibilities as an individual living in the United States.

    • Dean Moriarty Exactly ! You will sit and rot for anything but the most minuscule misdemeanor . Switching Public Pretenders is a joke . All of them have hundreds of open cases and there might be only two for the entire county . Ashon MAY have been arrested for civil disobedience or some such nuisance charge, but that’s about it .

    • Ashton is right and I don’t understand the immediate resort to ad homenim attacks when presented with new information on this page. I worked as a PD for years, and do you know why 99% of clients took their plea? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING DID THE CRIME and want to make the best of the situation. You armchair social justice warriors have no flipping clue what you’re fighting for (ah there I go on a personal attack). But seriously the volume on this issue from people so incredibly far removed from the front line is quite annoying

  • its not being under arrest its ,confined undemocratic isolation ,has nothing to do with law

  • Because the funding for the Court systems have not grown with the increased revenues! They have cut spending to our Justice system and funneled it to Crony Capitalism. It doesn’t mean that 95% are innocent!

    • No such thing as crony capitalism. You have capitalism, then you have corporatism. We have corporatism. Or an oligarchal dictatorship. Whichever you prefer.

    • 95%arent innocent ,n vice versa

    • Ashton Haggitt We have Crony Capitalism, but no one made these criminals commit crimes. Turning them lose to further torment their neighborhoods, wives, husbands, and children is more heartless than throwing away the key!

  • That is fucked up man!

  • U either u admit guilt when no guilt is present so i can pad my conviction rating or I’ll use the corruption in our criminal “justice” system to destroy your life. ALWAYS GO TO TRIAL. NEVER FEAR THE TRUTH. DEFEND YOURSELF IF NEED BE. THE BURDEN IS ON THESE FUCKING CORRUPT PROSECUTORS.

    • I’m taking mine to trial. If it gets there. Crown Attorney will risk their police officers perjuring themselves on the stand if it gets to that.

      Always go to trial.

    • Trial is best. I was on a jury for a attempted murder charge as well as 10 other charges. We didn’t find him guilty on most charges. And we had 2nd faze because he claimed insanity only on some of the charges. If had had plead bargain he would have been over 15 yrs in prison

    • Very simplified view of the system. Good and bad on both sides of this, as with most other things in life

    • Government prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys subvert the bill of rights and constitution, they lie to get convictions. The system is gamed. It’s a zero sum game. Smoke & mirrors. If you go to trial you will be given 3-5 times longer sentence. Prosecutors even ask judges to give longer sentences for a defendant exercising their right to a trial by jury. Pleas are coerced!

  • This is bullshit…

  • 95% sounds about like the perecentage of people who take plea deals. There is tremendous pressure to take plea deals, even for innocent people. Trials rarely happen.

    • That’s what it’s all about. 🙂

    • innocent people take pleas all the time for fear of losing n going to prison.

    • I wrote about that.

    • Or just because going to trial means losing your job or failing your classes.

  • Currupt

  • the fix

  • “guilty until you confess,” that seems about right, that’s how this good-for-nothing nation works now-and-days. If you don’t take a plea bargain, they’ll threaten you with years of imprisonment for some pretty dumb stuff too!

  • Because most people can not afford the representation cost of a trial

  • Any jury in America may exercise their Right of Jury Nullification, and even though judges don’t mention it, when you serve on a jury, it’s not just the defendant on trial, it’s the law as well. If jurors believe a law is UN-Constitutional, unfair or think that applying it in their particular case would be unjust, then they do not have to find the defendant guilty, even if the evidence clearly indicates guilt according to existing ‘law’.

    So, if you ever serve on a jury don’t forget about jury nullification. Tell the other jurors you don’t have to convict, even if all the evidence points to guilt, if you don’t agree with the application of the law in this instance. And if you can’t swing your peers to your way of thinking, at least you can cause the jury to return a hung verdict.


    “Jurors should acquit, even against the judge’s instruction… if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.” ~ Alexander Hamilton, 1804

    “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.” ~ John Adams, 1771

  • When I was 18 I took a plea deal for something I didn’t do because I didn’t want to sit in jail for 2 years while my trial happened. Still messing up my life.

  • No Ashton Haggitt, it’s not that simple.

  • Prisons are the new plantations. Poverty is the new black.

  • I’m in the middle of a case right now… The whole system is complete bullshit!

  • Seems like our Court System is on Rental to Corporations and whoever else can Afford to Pay to manipulate it to extort money/manual labor from the the citizenship. No wonder Lady Justice wears a blindfold….. so she does not have to look at the BS!

  • prisons is just another big corp. bleeding our economy

  • That’s why its called the Just-us system…..no soup for you!

  • Yeah its bullshit to be locked up like that with no trial I’ve seen this alot people being locked up in a county’s jail for Years just because they cant afford bail now days your guilty to proven innocent

  • It’s mostly about the money the for profit institutions make and the kickbacks to judges.

  • How long did it take you guys at The Free Thought Project.com to realize this? it has been a bit of an open secret outside of the US for a good while now.

  • I served in a grand jury.. It’s true they can indict a ham sandwich..but it’s the jury that is indicting them…

  • Another example of why you need to plead not guilty the very first moment you see a judge. That starts the 6 month quick and speedy trial rights. It don’t start until you plead not guilty,that’s why they don’t have you plead until months later, just more time for the prosecutor to gather evidence. If you postpone it that postpones the time line,if the prosecution postpones it,it doesn’t. If everyone did that it would force the court’s to throw out a lot of bs cases.

    • Lots of misinformation and partial truths here, at least pertaining to Maryland law. The 180 day rule only applies in circuit court (the vast majority of criminal cases are dealt with, or at least start, in district) and does begin to toll at your initial appearance, regardless of whether you enter a plea or not. It can also be nullified by the judge for “good cause” continuances by either side. Always check the rules in your local jurisdiction before going to court

    • You have to request a speedy trial it’s not automatic. The prosecutor may change the charges all the way until they call the first witness.

    • The constitutional right to speedy trial vests at the first critical stage of proceedings and can only be forfeited by the defendant. Unfortunately many courts have held that even years worth of postponements are still “speedy” so long as continuances were for good cause. Some states (like Maryland) have carved out legislative rules in certain cases but as discussed unfortunately even those can be malleable

    • I’m not sure about Maryland, but in Colorado under the speedy trial rule, trial must be provided within 6 months from entry of not guilty plea.Speedy trial commences on the date of filing the not guilty plea.
      A Speedy & Public Trial: C.R.Crim.P. 48(b), CRS 18-1-405, Article II Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution and Amendment 6 to the U.S. Constitution.

    • The entry of a not guilty plea happens at an initial appearance in Maryland, and I assume it would be the same in Colorado. You can’t just not plead at your initial for that reason. Either you plead not guilty and the 180 starts tolling or you plead guilty. I can’t imagine a judge just letting a defendant walk out of an initial without a plea one way or the other

    • Colorado plays by different rules, here you have to plead before that clock starts, and they sure don’t let you know. https://www.denver-colorado-criminal-lawyer.com/your-constitutional-rights/the-issue-of-speedy-trial-rights-in-colorado

    • Can’t believe nobody’s gotten on that tbh. I always viewed it as a liberal state too

    • They’re some shady bastards here for sure. But on the flip side, a felon can still own a gun here. In the home for sure, I’m not sure about a concealed carry though, and as long as they’re not on probation or parole.

  • Lmao “significant percentages of them are innocent”…says who? Your “expert” literally just lets shit run out of his mouth and you guys lap it up. Just because he thinks large percentages are innocent they must be? He backs it up with literally no quantitative evidence

  • There is no bargain in a plea, the system rigs it and over charges people planning on a plea.

  • slavery 1984 style, these guys are making goods on the cheap, i.e. number plates etc

  • it’s called “plea bargaining” and the guilty use it to reduce their sentence and the prosecuters use it to get a 90% conviction rate..

  • The us is a cesspit

  • Who the hell wants to go to trial when you’re facing twenty years but have the option to take a two year plea deal? The courts are set up to give outrageous sentences so that people will voluntarily plead to something that seems realistic (at least vs. the full sentence potential).

    • Most states employ sentencing guidelines that judges are required to follow unless they have extraordinary facts, which they must state on the record as the basis for their deviation. Most states guideline worksheets are also available online (Maryland is anyway) so that anyone can crunch the numbers and see if their plea is reasonable based on the guidelines

  • An admission (guilty plea) is a matter of fact and not opinion, therefore a jury must hear the admission and decide on its credibility. The whole thing is illegal

    • Could you elaborate a bit for us, Michael? You have an intriguing idea here but I’m not sure it’s fleshed out

    • A judge may not rule on matters of fact. Only on opinions of law, usually derived from prior case law. If i go in and plead guilty, that is a confession, such as one that would be given to police and used in trial. But the trial never happens. The facts are assumed and not proven as ‘fact’ by a jury. They get around this also by allowing the pre-supposition that a trial other than by inpartial jury would be a trial by judge. This is also factually incorrect and illegal. The opposite of a trial by impartial jury is not ‘a judge’. Consulting black’s law dictionary and studies of the constitution from the federalist papers through contemporary treasties by juris doctorates shows the whole thing is a sham. Further, did you know that citizens, without a judge or prosecutor, may convene their own grand jury to indict police, politicians, etc and enfore the determination of that jury by force? The whole thing has been hijacked

    • Also, there is no legal enforcement entity in the federal government. All departments and every office for those departments requires a 75% vote by the states to create an ammendment to the constitution for that department to legally exist. Which means no federal statute is enforced by law, only by force

    • Well, the facts are “assumed” because the defendant acquiesces to accepting them when pleading guilty. And even then, the prosecutor will still outline the agreed facts for that judge to determine the elements were met. If you try and plead guilty to arson and the state just reads the facts “the defendant jay walked across the street” the judge is still obligated to find you not guilty. I’ve seen it happen; judges can say “no, that activity is not a crime, or doesn’t meet the elements of the crime specified.” As for federal law I have to admit you lost me a bit, but I would agree criminal law should be in the sole discretion of the states if that’s what you’re saying

    • Im saying the irs, fbi, nsa, tsa, cia, blm, et al, are illegally operating entities. And the constitution proves it. A judge cannot rule on guilt or innocence. Nowhere, anywhere, does it say thats allowed. It can be argued its illegal for the judge to be in the courtroom while proceedings are ongoing, and fairly well. Its actually been done before

    • Get blacks law dictionary and a primer on contract law. Then get the full text version of the constitution, along with all papers written by its creators, many of which are commonly referred to as the federalist papers. What we ‘know’ is NOT what it is. oh and listen to this guy. He is a juris doctorate

    • I’m a J.D., Michael, it doesn’t make us superheroes lol. A judge is by definition a finder of fact when there is no jury, however, so I don’t understand your contention that he is ineligible from determining guilt or innocence

    • Hold on ill grab that for you

    • Show me where it mentions a judge

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]

    • And yes, not all J.D.’s are created equal. But im not one so i referenced someone who was

    • A defendant always has a right to a trial by jury. Some can choose to waive that and have a bench trial for whatever tactical reason. I don’t think that obfuscates the right

    • And a plea isn’t a trial, if that’s what you’re getting at

    • The opposite of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, is not ‘a judge’. There is no provision for judgeship anywhere to be found

    • Im pretty sure its well established that only a jury may rule on fact. Besides that, there is the provision that a judge may not assist either side, nor act as a lawyer. So rulings on objections may be seen as swaying the jury, a nod or a cough or any physical activity may be taken by a jury member as clues to a judge’s disposition. Reading the charges would be doing the prosecution’s job. It would be hard to argue that a judge would be able to sit through an enitire trial without influencing the jury in some way in one side’s favor, intentionally or not, making his mere presence a crime

    • I’m sorry, Michael, but you’re not making any sense to me. Are you proposing we need a jury every time a defendant wants to plead guilty?

    • A plea isnt lawful

    • A judge may not accept a “not guilty” plea as evidence of innocence and rule. So how could he rule on a “guilty” plea?

    • Because a guilty plea is the person freely admitting in court they did something and affirmatively waiving the rights were talking about. Go to any district court, you’ll hear (roughly) the same recitation before any plea outlining the rights you’re giving up by making that decision

    • And the judge is not acting as the FINDER of fact in a plea, he simply accepts the facts from the state (agreed to by the defendant); he does still, however, maintain the responsibility to determine those facts check every element of the crime plead to

    • I agree thats how it works. That doesnt change its absence from any legal document authorizing such a right

    • I get it, you are waiving your rights to X. But that doesnt grant the state the right to do Y.

    • What Y are you talking about though? The finding of guilt itself? I asked before, does that mean you think we need a jury at every guilty plea?

    • Y being the mode finding of guilt absent an ‘impartial jury.’ And yes. I think that would be big for juror nullification points. “Guilty with an explanation” would do much more for defendants in front of a jury than a judge. Part of why the constitution doesnt mention judges at all. They arent supposed to exist

    • Waving my rights to a speedy, impartial, public trial does not grant the state the right to try me by judge

    • Again, the opposite of a trial by impartial jury is not a trial by judge

    • That’s quite an outlandish take on things, Michael. For the sake of argument, lets only deal with state criminal courts. The constitution has no bearing on them, save that states cannot offer fewer protections than those enumerated in the bill of rights. As such, each state is free to determine its criminal procedure. Positing that a judge has no authority to judge someone is certainly novel, but even you would agree it flies in the face of centuries of common law and jurisprudence?

    • The constitution does not mention judges for specifically that point; they leave the modes of criminal procedure up to the states themselves

    • But this constitutional protection is the crux of the deal. Nothing may be assumed. You cannot assume that the states have a right to create trial judges, or whatever youd call them, when the constitution specifically protects you from them by not giving any judge any deparment, office or power. If a state’s law violates the constitution, that law ia unlawful

    • The constitution specifically does not mention criminal procedure, Michael. And it is a document of enumerated powers. ANYTHING not mentioned HAS to be assumed to be the authority of the states. And your argument that a judge has no jurisdiction to judge just doesn’t fly with the authors understanding of criminal procedure was at the time of writing. They knew what it was and how it worked, and they went out of their way to make sure states kept that right

    • If you read correspondence between the writers of the document and the federalist papers, youd see that was the intent. They hated judges. This way the power always remains in the hands of the people, which was the point of the document

    • The constitution only created the federal court system. And that court (the Supreme Court) was specifically vested with original jurisdiction for certain national and maritime maters, but then otherwise was limited to only appellate jurisdiction of already-established courts in the several states. The implication being they acknowledged the existence of the state courts and reserved jurisdiction for personal crimes to those states (common law that judges can, you know, judge, and everything else that comes with them)

    • Well then, they should have put that in the document if they were so adamant about it 🙂

    • If the states are forced to adopt/ratify the constitution (they are) its a moot point. Its written in

    • You’re reading something into it, Michael, that just isn’t there. In my opinion, anyway. But it seems my opinion has been shared by every legal scholar since the thing was signed

    • If they wanted to protect people from judges LITERALLY all they had to do was make an amendment mandating that findings of fact and sentences can only be handed down by tribunals of citizens, grand juries, whatever. But they didn’t. And in not doing that they acquiesced to the common law at the time of the document, which is that judges judge

    • I disagree. I believe the document, as worded, holds sufficient power to restrain the government, as long as one doesnt open it up to layman’s interpretations

    • Tell you what, even i i play along w your idea, that means 75% of the counties in georgia would have needed to vote for an ammendment creating these departments and its officers. I havent looked, but do those exist?

    • You’ve totally lost me, Michael. Sorry

    • The creation of any department or office requires a 75% vote to create a constitutional ammendment. As the states had to adopt the constitution, wouldnt it follow state laws had to adopt the same rules? Or no?

    • I would say no, so long as that department offers no more restrictions on liberty as those prescribed in the bill of rights. And the right to not be judged by a judge is not enumerated there

    • But the opposite of a speedy trial would be a slow or deliberate one. The opposite of a right to a public trial is a private one. The opposite of a trial by impartial jury is not a trial by judge. It would be a trial by a biased or partial jury

    • And by research i believe this was the intention.. But do you still believe i dont have it as fleshed out as you believed?

    • You’ve fleshed out your argument, I just don’t think it’s legally binding or correct, frankly

    • Thats ok too

    • I just disgree. And thats alright

  • considering the human rights no longer exist in ‘Murica, it’s time for England to take it back

  • Land of the free…… Not anymore

  • all victimless crimes.. crimes where the person is hurting just himself,.. should be eliminated.. End the Drug war, and treat addiction like an illness… stop debtors prison… stop incarceration for minor crimes.. prison should be for those who use force, and usurp others rights and life and property.

  • It’s cheaper to take the plea deal than to pay for a lawyer….who works with the states attorney anyway!!!

  • TRUE! Guilty intil you prove you’re innocent!

  • The new slave labor camps, its not justice, its free corporate labor and our taxes are paying to house and feed slaves.

  • This is what happens when you let the american legal system go on unchecked. But cops,lawyers, and judges love this so its ok

  • The system has gone too far. Too many people on the local level that are involved. It would take something radical to change it. Or maybe a miracle..

  • How true and yet sad.

  • The State has given a life sentence to a man who stood for his rights and hurt no one. Dustin Heathman is a political prisoner and American patriot who dared to stand by the Constitution. The cops lied about what really happened. Please come to our page and share Dustin’s story. He never tried to hurt or kill anybody.

  • Who says slavery is gone in America?

  • For there to be a crime there needs to be a victim or property damage !!!!!!!!!!!!!! T HE STATE cannot be the vctim

  • When you sell your soul to the devil promising 85% occupancy to these private prisons…..What do you expect?

  • cause they intimidate you and tell you if your found guilty you will do the full sentence and to take the deal they offer cause we all know we wont get a fair trial so we have to take the SHIT deal and confess to crimes we dont even commit! this happened to me my friends did some stupid shit came back to my house which led the cops to my house and i didnt wonna snitch so the cops accused me and took size 11 shoes when i have size 8 1/2 and when i went to court i brought my friend who did do it so he could confess and they wouldnt let him speak and my court appointed lawyer didnt do shit well after a year of it being put off and put off finaly my lawyer goes i dont believe you the prosecutor doesnt believe you and the judge doesnt believe you so you better take the offer or you are gonna go to trial and and lose and end up in prison for 3 years… so ofcourse me being 18 and scared i took there offer… FUCK THIS COUNTRY AND GOVERNMENT!

    • Gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that story right here and right now

    • call what you want it happened buddy

    • Hey I got a bridge in Brooklyn I’m trying to sell if you’re looking to invest

    • troll… dont you have better things to do than call people liars?

    • It’s not exactly trolling if I’m totally upfront about what I’m doing is it? And I do genuinely think you’re lying about this, I’m not faking it. So I don’t think it’s “trolling” in the purest sense

    • okay im done talking to you, think what you want lol

    • Johnny McGowan why do you not believe him??? I do. And to top it off I am a convicted felon for a crime I DID NOT commit and got railroaded into taking a plea for that I wanted to take to trial up til the point when MY atty walked off the case and I was stuck with the co defendents public atty who told us he would just be a warm body in court and was not going to put on a defense for us. IT happens ALOT! Especially if u are poor!

  • they scare and terrorize people into taking deals. wisdom: take everything to trial

  • True

  • Look up strict and absolute liability law. When it applies to criminal law it is terrifying. If you commit a crime whether you knew you were doing something wrong or not there is no defense. Basically short of murder you have no defense. For example if you were borrowing a friends car, got pulled over, and they found weed in the trunk. You have no defense even though it is your friends car and his/her weed. The law says you should have known. It applies in everything short of cases that can be death penalty or life sentences. In my state there was an attempt to change this, the States Attorney General said and I quote, “Why would we change that? The court system would be over run and over burdened!” Due process is dead in the United States. http://www.facebook.com/TheConcernedCitizenCommunity

  • Unless you got the money…

  • I would like to disagree with you but I simply cannot. You are exactly right and it is pathetic. Truth be told, it is all about money. I know plenty of people who would have fought ridiculous charges but could not afford all the things necessary to do so. Bail, lawyers, filing fees, etc… this list goes on and on and on… so yes, most people plea down to a lesser charge to not only be done with whatever it is, but also because it is all they can afford to do. The system was never intended to work this way and it is pathetic as hell that this is what we have.


  • Wtf?!

  • Legalised slavery

  • Sad but VERY TRUE, been saying this for years……..and it will never change, been railroaded more than once, been there, done that…MONEY,MAKES IT ALL GO AWAY>>>>

  • its a cheat country and led by criminals it chould be close down

  • Edward Duree

    That’s probably a fair account of what happens to many, particularly those with appointed attorneys who have come to dominate the judicial system.
    First, any appoibted defense attorney who makes a personal determination of a client’s guilt or innocence should be reported to the court and fired. That’s not part of his job and creates a conflict of interest. His job is to evaluate and test evidence so he can advise a client what a jury might do with it–the different ways the jury might interpret it and what would be useful to raise a reasonable doubt.
    Moreover, no defense investgator established your foot size, interviewed others aware of the facts, including the guy ready to confess? That’s called incompetence and is grounds to relieve an appointed attorney or overturn a conviction.
    Unfortunately, if you have a govt employee as your lawyer, you are likely to get govt work. You do have to buy justice, a good lawyer, just like everything else.

  • Jon Clifton

    It’s coming people. There are 300 million pissed off people in the United States and damn near everyone of them own some sort of firearm. When they finally wake up and start to take matters into their own hands, there isn’t going to be enough police, military or “good people” to stop them. They are going to lay waste to all these criminals and Washington is going to end up being a huge parking lot. When the corruption is wiped out and we start over, the first one who bucks the system, tries to corrupt anyone or takes as much as a dollar bribe, kill them. Give the honest people of this country what they deserve, not what the greedy money hungry bastards who run it want!

  • “Your beliefs become your thoughts,Your thoughts become your words,Your words become your actions,Your actions become your habits,Your habits become your values,Your values become your destiny.” – Mahatma Gandhi

  • I’ll help it along if you guys will.

  • Bravo

  • because dum ass American are to scare to stand up to the government

  • The only thing I find wrong with this is the “95% of prisoners never had a trial”
    1. If you’re in prison you’ve had a trial.
    2. 95% on inmates in county jail haven’t had trials, yet.
    There’s a big difference between the two.

    • two words, Plea Deals

    • Most ppl don’t fight and plea out to get better time if you rat or confess you usually get less time than if you and I quote “waste the court’s time”.

    • Nah, you are wrong, most get a plea deal, and never see a trial.

    • This phony war on drugs is horrible & shameful . Remember when Wachovia bank laundered $ 360 billion of Mexican drug cartel money & nobody went to jail ? They were fined just 2 % of one years profits , 600 million . HSBC was fined $ 1.9 Billion for the same thing . I just wonder how many didn’t get caught ..Then seeing some inner city kid get 20 years in a private for profit prison . That’s what criminal . They’re making money on both ends . http://www.theguardian.com/…/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gang

    • You’re going to retract your comment here, aren’t you Nathan?

    • Good information. And no I won’t retract it, because some will say the Same thing to them selves and see this information. Now if you feel the need be a troll stand up and go get some air.

    • I don’t mean delete. I mean retract; that is, to acknowledge that most people in prison have not, in fact, had trials.

    • Fair justice is expensive…its all about money..You have the $ then you can get off most crimes. Most people either use a public defender or else cannot afford to take their case to trial as it gets expensive. Therefore they are pressured to not go to trial and take a plea. The statistics are correct. Most in jail in the US have never had a trial…Bottom line~ they cannot afford it.

    • I went to prison for drugs, and had to plea out because what they offered vs what I could have gotten in trial was not worth the risk.

    • “Over-charging” and minimum sentences put HUGE pressure on the accused to plea out, innocent or not. But hey, it makes the prosecutor look good…

    • When Justice is a business venture nothing ensures corruption like a lucrative career in destroying lives.

  • Joe Rogan is my hero!!!! He`s absolutely, right!! Wake the Fuck up, society! (y) (y)

  • Nathan Charles Byrd Joe Rogan is completely correct. 95% of inmates never had a trial. Most have taken plea agreements because either they can’t afford a good attorney, or to avoid extremely lengthy prison sentences for low drug offenses or both..


  • just because you are in prison doesn’t mean u had a trail! that 5% have to take deals!! or take your chances at trial witch you won’t do knowing you got ratted on and have no way on winning in trial yoiut take a plea deal!

  • I didn’t do it. Oh you have a video recording of me doing it?

  • This can’t be allowed to happen to our kids!!!! Stop drugs.

  • Yep

  • You end up paying more taxes for an inmates shelter and food for a year then tuition for a drug dealer that doesn’t pay taxes

  • Joe rogan has been on fire!! Did you just figure this out?? #thegodfather

  • Joe you nailed it again

  • Tweakers suck!!!…meth is for losers!

  • What’s the point of having a defense attorney who never does trials?

    • They charge you for public attorneys, trust me that shit isnt free

    • I don’t doubt it so you may as well get your money’s worth.

    • All defense attorneys do trials sometimes, but it’s often not worth the risk.





  • It wasn’t a war on drugs, it is a war on the people, and freedoms, just like everything else that has happened to dig more rights away from the people.

  • I don’t think there is any truth in the above post. The drug problem in this country is huge. Its not just about pot smokers having a good time. Most crime is drug related in one form or another. Wars don’t end until one side or the other wins.

    • And it’s really never occurred to you that prohibition causes far more crime than it prevents……

    • So you think all drugs should just be legalized. I think more people die from drunk drivers than the crime that prohibition caused. If I used the logic you’re inferring than there shouldn’t be anything that is illegal.

    • Using a “drug” is a “victimless crime”… How do you commit a crime without a victim? Drug related crime is a direct effect of the war on drugs. The term was coined to foster support from the uninformed through the use of fear. It obviously work on a few, Gordon Lewis, but when you take a different perspective and follow the money trail you really see who has something to gain and lose from a prolonged war on drugs.

    • people are assaulted, robbed and attacked by users who need money to buy drugs. Dealers and gangs break the law to control their drug areas.Driving under the influence and killing others etc etc. Becoming a drain on society and being nonproductive or dangerous in the workplace. Look at the toll alcohol has had on our society and how can you believe legalizing drugs can be a good thing.

  • I like the meme except why did they choose Joe Rogan for the picture lol

  • This phony war on drugs is horrible & shameful . Remember when Wachovia bank laundered $ 360 billion of Mexican drug cartel money & nobody went to jail ? They were fined just 2 % of one years profits , 600 million . HSBC was fined $ 1.9 Billion for the same thing . I just wonder how many didn’t get caught ..Then seeing some inner city kid get 20 years in a private for profit prison . That’s what criminal . They’re making money on both ends . http://www.theguardian.com/…/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gang

  • You do understand that if they stop the war on drugs and make drugs legal they will find a way to exploit your health and your wealth through drugs. So wake the fuck up and get rid of drugs all together. You rant and rave about the pharmaceutical companies killing people. Well youre just setting yourself up for the next best thing. Instead of jail theyll just slowly kill you if they aren’t already.

    • By “get rid of drugs all together”, are you challenging people to eliminate their own drug consumption, or are you espousing the totalitarian fantasy of Total Drug Prohibition?

    • Christopher you are dumb. Drugs are anything that change the normal biological function within the body. Drugs can be have both good and bad effects. Some more than others . Try removing the lifesaving drugs that people depend on. Get a reality check. If drugs were made legal how the fuck would they ‘find a way to kill you’ when it would be completely regulated. Not everyone is out to get you quit with the paranoia .

    • Again someone being an ‘educated’ hero. I’m not talking about ‘legal’ drugs. This post mentions about ‘illegal’ drugs and that is what I’m commenting on, so please try to stick to that. Secondly you refer to my point about how they would find a way to kill you. Let’s have a think for a moment. Two very big and very legal drugs already available to the general everyday person is tobacco and alcohol. Both are equally bad for you and have extreme side effects. We as a global population know they are bad but as an individual we make the decision to take them. The government and companies that supply these products know of the dangers and merely inform the public that they are ‘dangerous’ but no real plan is implemented to change this. They are either raise the price or spend two or three months a year with some sort of fear campaign.

    • This Page and it’s followers bang on about big pharmacy and government trying to get you. However when it comes to good old drugs everyone will jump on the wagon trying to prove I’m a paranoid nut. I may be a nut but at least I don’t just decide to be ignorant all because I think drugs are so bloody magical. Get a grip theyll find a way to exploit you, just like as you mentioned before the ‘legal’ drugs are still an exploit otherwise they’d be cheap and easy accessed. Not thousands of dollars a year.

    • Could you please answer my question? What do you mean by “get rid of drugs all together?”

    • It’s a suggestion rather. What I mean is that people should tackle their serious drug addictions to things like meth and ice and harmful rubbish as such. I also suggest that if we are to have recreational drugs like cannibis it needs to be kept away from big corps and government otherwise it’s going to end up just another exploit of society. Of course I understand that to eliminate drugs entirely is ridiculous. I’m merely suggesting that if possible we steer clear of letting big businesses take over what people want and consider recreational drugs.

    • “They” are not killing you. If you over-consume dangerous drugs then you are killing yourself. “They” are simply meeting a demand.

    • No no no. You don’t understand, the whole point of the post is to show that the legalisation of certain drugs will keep people out of jails and away from the unessecary harm of the system. Like I stated before its just a big bloody scheme in the governments black book to get you to buy into the whole we are legalizing recreational drugs and doing god knows what with them. Majority if not all of recreational drugs offer the same pros and cons as the pharmaceutical drugs. So you cannot simply kill yourself in the space of a day or a month. They legalise a high demand product to make profit and commit some sort of atrocity at the same time.

    • Eliminating drugs all together is an impossible feat. Maybe the US government should undertake that effort. That’s their typical choice of challenges.

  • Private enterprise.private prisons.havent you figured it out yet.The whole system is big BIG BUSINESS .To make it work you need criminals,lots and lots or else there wouldnt be a need for all of those lucrative by products.Lawyers.judges.cops.cruisers.courts paper work.Bail bonds.AND people like those AWFULL DOG AND BETH.JEEZif they are an example of American justice.they look like something out of mad max and he,s definately on something.probably peroxide from dying his hair jeesh,Idont know much about drugs dont understand why people need the crap to be happy,2 states have legalised it(is that good or bad.has it reduced crime or just allowed people to frack themselfes up legally???) so if its not criminal to use it that should drop the prison population by 60%.Bad for business that.

  • 95% might actually be a low number. From my own experience, I’d have to say that number was more like 98%. Most people in prison are there because they could not afford an Attorney, so they were appointed a public pretender. No offense to those few Public defenders that actually take their jobs seriously, but let’s be clear on one thing. Public pretenders paychecks are signed by the same individual that signs the prosecutors check. So being in the civil service as all Public defenders actually are it behooves them to clear as many cases as possible without a trial. It’s called a plea bargain, which in reality is no bargain at all. But, shall we look at the alternative. If everyone in prison had chosen to take their case to trial the cost would be more than any three wars to date. Trials are expensive. Once you understand the economics of the Judicial system, which by the way, have drug the capitalistic economy to an all time low, than and only than will you begin to grasp how badly the war on drugs has gone for all of us…………… Peace

  • What about officers serving in the army in Afghanistan and other countries where opium is grown.They don’t have to pass through customs when they are back home.

    • Yes they do… I’m not sure where you got that information but every soldier passes through customs in and out of country. All vehicles and equipment are also checked. That doesn’t mean we don’t have smart, creative soldiers that find ways to bring things back but in no way shape of form do they get a free pass in or out the country.

  • YES!

  • We should support our FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation Apple… and Google it could save many lives. please and thank you…
    http://www.justice.gov/actioncenter/report-crime (Y)

  • let states legalize MJ, regulate it, and tax it!!!

  • I do believe this is what they are vying for.

  • This has less fact than a chocolate frog card. You conspiracy theorists out there should remember- our government can’t effectively conspire to unlock a fucking iPhone.

  • I agree with most of this but the 95% percent in jail without a trail is probably because they were offered a plea deal and took it. If 95% of people in jail didn’t go to court is just pure bullshit.

  • Justin Trudeau, Canadian PM, bragged about his pot use, and yet he is not in jail or has a record. End the hypocrisy at least.

  • Wars = $$$

  • Absolute horse shit.

    • Not at all, it’s all fact and current state of our prison system is, how you so eloquently stated, “Absolute horse shit.”

  • fuck yes to all of this

  • Citations?

  • Should never have been started…

  • I work with Youth Offender Services they make .83 an hour if they piss of they guard they make half that. This is slave labor.

  • There’s simply too much money at stake for law enforcement, the government and the private prisons.

  • War on drugs is a crime against humanity. All humans do drugs. Most drug laws were created by racist to keep minorities locked up. We fell for it, time to admit our mistake and end it. Coffee and chocolate are just a few mind altering drugs we all do, more dangerous than cannabis. You don’t get high because you’ve built a tolerance, still drugs thought. Imagine if somebody outlawed coffee tomorrow because purple people drink it…that’s exactly what happened to cannabis, except you smoke it and the people were brown…look it up.

  • Ay, I read it but cant forward it as do not want to endorse such foul language in the post, it is unnecessary!

  • War on drugs has caused more homelessness and hopelessness……… I think we need refugee camps for ALL the folks that got screwed.

  • I have said this before: Half the time in an American court room it is the Judge, the DA and the cops who are the real criminals.

  • How can it be a war on drugs when prison is full of drugs and abuse? When the majority of drug and cell phone/gang contraband is brought in by the guards? The whole system is corrupt. The Justice system is about money. If you can afford “justice” in this country you can get away with most crimes. If your too poor to afford to take your case to trial and plea out you can end up in jail for offenses of something as simple as possession of pot.

  • There is no ‘war on drugs’. It’s simply a war on dissidents, hippies and poor people.

  • it reminds me of ISIS n the Crusaders…. killin’ ppl usin’ a good name 4 cover.

  • At least translate its name into doublespeak, like the “crusade to minimise harmful substance associations”.

  • We have progressed enough to know and understand the fundamental truth of life. The truth about life and death on earth has been revealed the latest and greatest source of the truth about life and death on earth, it’s the best news there is. The universe as its relates to conscious life can be understood now. It is the ultimate truth; the truth that will transform mankind and the world.

    The only real difference between mankind and other animals is our ability to reason and think. Thus, reason has to be what we have to use to evolve further. We have to use what sets us apart from other animals. Learning the ultimate truth is the next step in our evolution which makes it the most important and worthwhile thing to know. Nothing is more important and more valuable in our existence than knowing the ultimate truth.

    Go to truthcontest.com and read the first top entry – The Present -.

  • Is Joe Rogan a parent?

  • The US never saw a war they didn’t love. Profit is king.

  • The fist figure is true only if you include jails. Only about 1800 prisons (only, lol)

  • Most people in prison or jail have taken a plea deal. Most people don’t go to trial. I think the War on Drugs has made some people a lot of money, lawyers, private prisons etc.

  • It was never about the drug usage. It’s always been about government control.

  • True story

  • So many things wrong with these stats.

  • Joey Joseph Pettit

  • I like this love this and am angry also…

  • we need a war on drugs but we need to go about it diffrently

  • and if you are in prison you had a trail if you in the county lock up diffrent story

  • Land of the Free!? ‘Merica!

  • Funny most of people I know in prison had a trial they were guilty that’s why they are in prison

  • Well, if people werent so damned weak, they wouldnt turn to drugs.

  • Its an inmates choice to plea or go to trial. Just saying

  • I was there!, I know

  • But we’re notorious for dragging out the unwinnable wars that we shouldn’t have entered to begin with. Then walk away with nothing positive accomplished and making things worse. It’s what we do, why stop the steak now?

  • Here, read this

  • Prisoners – – – – For – – – – Profit – – –

  • John Andrea

  • think that is all BS sorry

  • Russell Mohr

    In my town of Council Bluffs ,Iowa pop.70,000…the D.A. brags about the 100% conviction rate……and heres how the assholes achieve it…at the time of your arrest you are charged for at least two other “crimes” to make sure your bond is driven up so its almost impossible to post…….and why your in the holding area you can use the phone and are allowed to call cell phones….so you have about 20 calls to get your bail together because once you are “dressed out” and moved to the jail a funny thing happens….you are no longer able to call cell phones!!!???…..If your lucky and know someone with a landline it has to have long distance activated,so basically you are not getting hold of no one ….your stuck like chuck…so there u are sitting with a good chance nobody knows you’ve been kidnapped……then the public defender you get to see once tells you you are looking at 10 yrs or more,(because say u shoplifted something you some how are now charged with robbery,resisting ,assaulting an officer because you reached out instinctively to try to stay upright while they are beating you to the ground and theirs nothing you can do to fight your case because your locked the fuck up…..so after 30 stressful days not knowing if your pets have died or you’ve been fired or don’t have your meds…..they come ar you with a fine and time served!!…..who the hell isn’t going to take that deal???even if your freind stuck something in your backpack that you had no idea was there…..and they are 100% correct when they say you do not want to go to trial and lose……..they max you out almost everytime!!!…lol….danger-russ

  • Raymond Karczewski


    This offer was presented to Ray by Deputy District Attorney

    September 1, 2003.
    Anita Karczewski

    Attorney CHRIS MECCA has been assigned to the case by the court. The Plea
    Bargain was typed on the Josephine County District Attorney’s stationery
    and dated August 8, 2003. It came from the Department of Justice.

    The STATE OF OREGON offered to drop five (5) counts of “Simulating Legal

    Process,” and to prosecute only two (2) out of the seven (7) original charges.

    The STATE OF OREGON is willing to go from the thirty-five (35) years possible
    sentencing on the seven (7) original Class C Felony charges down to ten (10) days on each of the two remaining charges — a total of twenty (20) days on the condition that Ray agree to twenty-four (24) months probation and that he pay monetary obligations. No amount was specified.

    It specified that Ray agree to have “no contact” with ALLAN H. COON, CLAY

    and that:

    “defendant may not submit any documents to any person, court or other Federal or
    State government agency that purports to exercise jurisdiction, represents a claim against a person or property, directs a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or directs a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act without the express approval of a member in good standing of the Oregon State Bar. Gives a full, complete and truthful (to be determined by the Department of Justice) interview with Oregon Department of Justice investigators.”

    It was signed: DAINA VITOLINS, Special Deputy District Attorney Ray will reject the offer as simply being another way for the court to gain “consent, a contract, an agreement, and then they’ve got jurisdiction. He feels that “they’re looking for an out, and this is the way they’re trying to do it.”

    • Burgess Krell ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Are you really Ray? I read that Ray passed away and someone from Ukraine was making posts using his name.

      • Raymond Karczewski

        Hello Burgess. Yes, I am the living Ray. What you have been reading is the
        disinformation campaign to discredit my writings by government and other
        disinformation agents who operate freely on the Internet. This has been going
        on for 21 years now and no agency will investigate them. All of my articles
        are true and pose a threat to the ruling institutions of our time.

        Raymond Karczewski

  • Dorian Mode

    Stop plea bargaining, I don’t care if it’s a traffic ticket. Tell them you want a jury trial, not a bench trial, but a Jury trial. This will tie up the courts and force some changes.

    • Jerry Adrey


    • Alex Parisien

      Easier said than done! You try that if you are facing 30 years for a bogus crime you didn’t commit or if you are unlucky enough to already have misdemeanors or non-violent felonies under your belt with a public defender…much easier said than done from your computer at home.

  • Though this may seem almost obviously untrue, that is far from the truth. No, they are not saying that people are sitting in jail, never having the option of a trial. They are pointing out the statistic of the percentage of inmate who are there by accepting a plea bargain to avoid a potentially longer sentence. Well that doesn’t sound so bad… Except many of the people who took the plea bargains did so out of fear of suffering an even longer sentence than they potentially have to, even if they are indeed innocent. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”The Constitution further guarantees that at the trial, the accused will have the assistance of counsel, who can confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. He may be convicted only if an impartial jury of his peers is unanimously of the view that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so states, publicly, in its verdict. The drama inherent in these guarantees is regularly portrayed in movies and television programs as an open battle played out in public before a judge and jury… But this is all a mirage. In actuality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone. Plea bargains offered a way out: by pleading guilty to lesser charges in return for dismissal of the more serious charges, defendants could reduce their prison time, while the prosecution could resolve the case without burdening the system with more trials. The practice of plea bargaining never really took hold in most other countries, where it was viewed as a kind of “devil’s pact” that allowed guilty defendants to avoid the full force of the law. But in the United States it became commonplace. The Supreme Court initially wasn’t feeling the system of plea bargaining, but eventually the Court came to approve of it. The prosecutor-dictated plea bargain system, by creating such inordinate pressures to enter into plea bargains, appears to have led a significant number of defendants to plead guilty to crimes they never actually committed. For example, of the approximately three hundred people that the Innocence Project and its affiliated lawyers have proven were wrongfully convicted of crimes of rape or murder that they did not in fact commit, at least thirty, or about 10 percent, pleaded guilty to those crimes. Presumably they did so because, even though they were innocent, they faced the likelihood of being convicted of capital offenses and sought to avoid the death penalty, even at the price of life imprisonment. But other publicized cases, arising with disturbing frequency, suggest that this self-protective psychology operates in noncapital cases as well, and recent studies suggest that this is a widespread problem. For example, the National Registry of Exonerations (A joint project of Michigan Law School and Northwestern Law School) records that of 1,428 legally acknowledged exonerations that have occurred since 1989 involving the full range of felony charges, 151 (or about 10 percent) involved false guilty pleas. It is not difficult to perceive why this should be so. After all, the typical person accused of a crime combines a troubled past with limited resources: he thus recognizes that, even if he is innocent, his chances of mounting an effective defense at trial may be modest at best. If his lawyer can obtain a plea bargain that will reduce his likely time in prison, he may find it “rational” to take the plea. How prevalent is the phenomenon of innocent people pleading guilty? The few criminologists who have thus far investigated the phenomenon estimate that the overall rate for convicted felons as a whole is between 2 percent and 8 percent. The size of that range suggests the imperfection of the data; but let us suppose that it is even lower, say, no more than 1 percent. When you recall that, of the 2.2 million Americans in prison, over 2 million are there because of plea bargains, we are then talking about an estimated 20,000 persons, or more, who are in prison for crimes to which they pleaded guilty but did not in fact commit. What can we do about it? If there were the political will to do so, we could eliminate mandatory minimums, eliminate sentencing guidelines, and dramatically reduce the severity of our sentencing regimes in general…But then the U.S. prison industrial complex and private prisons would fail and there would be a lot of lost money. The system has become inherently corrupt and there needs to be a BIG change. Plea deals are presented to defendants as a way to escape the near certainty of a heavy-handed sentence should they be found guilty by a jury at trial because defense attorneys’ and prosecutors’ most pressing goal is to prevent a trial in the first place. “Once you are charged in America, whether you did the crime or not, you are almost always found guilty.”

  • Clark Fletcher

    they hold your child for ransom like they did tommy chong