If, like the President of the United States, you think "flipping" is bad because it's a breach of loyalty, I can't help you. But if you think it's bad because it encourages false testimony and relies on structural defects in the system, well, there are some things you could do./1
-
Show this thread
-
/2 You could fully fund a vigorous defense for everyone charged with a crime, so that defendants don't "flip" because their attorneys don't have the time or resources or ability to litigate defensible cases. But you wont.
9 replies 197 retweets 1,891 likesShow this thread -
/3 You could create a system where there are genuine consequences for prosecutors who conceal impeachment evidence about their cooperating witnesses, and systems to enforce discovery obligations and track repeat cooperators. You ain't gonna do that either.
10 replies 168 retweets 1,757 likesShow this thread -
/4 You could revisit the structure of sentencing to shift power away from prosecutors so they can't personally dictate sentences through charging decisions, to reduce the coercive power to make people flip -- and incentivize them to lie. But you never will.
7 replies 157 retweets 1,560 likesShow this thread -
/5 You could make law enforcement record interviews so jurors can more accurately evaluate how cooperating witnesses' stories change to mirror what prosecutors want to hear. lol, you'll never do that.
12 replies 165 retweets 1,658 likesShow this thread -
/6 You could re-evaluate how "process crimes," like lying to investigators, are manipulated to coerce people to flip -- for example, how it's a crime to lie to the FBI even if they already know you're lying and it doesn't delay or impact them. But nah, right?
8 replies 132 retweets 1,337 likesShow this thread -
/7 You could look into a system that coerces people to "flip" because they can't afford bail and will spend years in jail before trial, never mind serving a sentence, if they don't flip. Not holding my breath.
5 replies 160 retweets 1,492 likesShow this thread -
/8 You could encourage a widespread culture of healthy, responsible civic skepticism of every prosecutor's case -- a real belief in reasonable doubt -- instead of Dick-Wolfing everyone into an attitude of servile badgelicking. Yeah, THAT'LL happen.
19 replies 165 retweets 1,547 likesShow this thread -
/9 You could treat constitutional rights, procedural fairness, and the rule of law as something other than a sneer, and stop supporting politicians who treat them as pro-criminal "soft" positions. But look at the mob of cretins you've voted in on all sides.
5 replies 157 retweets 1,475 likesShow this thread -
/10 You could stop treating "former prosecutor" as an unimpeachable qualification for the bench and public office -- or at least elevate "former defense lawyer" to the same level of respect. Yes? Yes? no.
12 replies 161 retweets 1,778 likesShow this thread
ISTM "former public defender" would work better. There's a lot more money one can make on the defense side for super sleazy things.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.