GPD is our General Posting Department whereby we share posts from other sources along with general information with our readers. It is managed by our Editorial Board

View Latest Posts >>>

America’s criminal justice system is a hoax

America's criminal justice system is a hoax. 57052.jpeg

by David R. Hoffman for Pravda.Ru

One of the most common ways people develop perceptions and/or form judgments about certain events, people, and/or occupations is by how they are portrayed in the corporate-controlled media. 

Unfortunately, these media are usually more preoccupied with entertainment value than truth and accuracy; therefore, the perceptions they create are often erroneous and/or incomplete.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the fictitious depictions of America’s criminal justice system that inundate both television and movie screens.

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, Perry Mason was a popular hour-long drama about an idealistic and intrepid criminal defense attorney whose clients were almost always innocent.  These shows routinely ended with Mason compelling the guilty party to break down and confess.

Mason always seemed to have an extraordinary amount of time and money to devote to an individual case, and always had on call a private detective, named Paul Drake, to investigate when Mason could not.  Yet, even though he “spared no expense” in defense of his clients, he frequently only charged a small fee for his services.

In the courtroom

In the courtroom, both Mason and the prosecutor, while often combative, were always interested in truth and justice.  In addition, presiding judges routinely allowed Mason great “latitude” in questioning witnesses, and/or in employing “irregular” procedures to defend his client.

The impact of Perry Mason had such an effect on some viewers that a juror in Illinois actually voted to send two men to death row, despite his doubts about their guilt, simply because he believed the real killer would be so overcome with remorse that he too would break down and confess.

I’ll admit, I was also a victim of this Perry Mason syndrome to such an extent that the show inspired me to go to law school.  But what I eventually learned during my years in the legal profession not only destroyed my Mason inspired idealism, it also confirmed the veracity of many of the criticisms and condemnations currently being hurled at America’s so-called “criminal justice system.”

I received my first taste of the realities of the criminal justice system when one of my instructors, who also served as a deputy prosecutor, announced at the beginning of class that she might be a few minutes late the following week.

Sexual assault

When I asked her why, she replied that a sexual assault case she was trying would be going to the jury, and she wasn’t sure how long deliberations would last.  She then added, “They’ll probably deliberate about two hours and find the defendant not guilty.”

She further explained that testimony had seemed to establish that the alleged victim, a drug addict, had fabricated the sexual assault allegations after the defendant, a family friend, refused to give her money to buy drugs.

The following week this instructor arrived on time, and opened the class with the following statement:  “Well, I was wrong.  They deliberated an hour and found him guilty.”  She followed this up with a somewhat dismissive, “Oh well.”

One of the current criticisms being leveled against America’s criminal justice system is that perjury is often used to gain wrongful convictions, and/or to cover-up police misconduct.  For example, after a police officer shot and killed Laquan McDonald in Chicago, many officers gave statements about the circumstances of this shooting that have since been contradicted by recently released videotape evidence.

I witnessed the prosecutorial use of perjury first-hand during my years of law practice.  A client of one of my colleagues had been convicted of drug possession, based on the testimony of a police officer.  This testimony was bolstered by a report the officer had written, which stated that tests conducted on the substance in question definitely proved it was marijuana.

Suspicious report

This report, however, was somewhat suspicious, because several lines had been covered with “white-out,” a substance commonly used to obscure errors made while using a standard typewriter.  This officer explained that, since he had been fatigued while typing this report, he had made several typographical errors that he corrected the following morning.

Given this explanation, the issue wasn’t pursued.  But when my colleague got back to the office, another attorney suggested we hold the report up to the overhead lights to see if the typing hidden under the “white-out” was visible.

Not only was it visible, but it stated that the tested substance had not been marijuana, but tobacco.  As a result, my colleague filed a motion to have the conviction set aside, and when I accompanied him to court for the hearing, we were greeted by an angry prosecutor-angry not at the officer who had perjured himself, but at us for bringing it to the court’s attention.

In a similar case, an arresting officer, to substantiate a DUI (driving under the influence) charge, testified about the specific details of a “conversation” he had with my client while transporting him to jail, even going so far as to state that my client’s words were slurred and that he had been rocking unsteadily in his seat.  Yet, other documents provided to the court clearly showed that no such conversation ever occurred and that this officer had not even been the one who transported my client to jail.

A second criticism, especially when dealing with police brutality cases, is that prosecutors have a collusive relationship with the police, and therefore are more inclined to cover-up, rather than punish, police misconduct.  Many critics say this was evident in the McDonald case since the prosecutor only filed charges after a judge ordered the release of the videotape evidence.

Critics also point out that prosecutors in the cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland simply convened bogus grand juries to create the charade of due process, and then manipulated the evidence presented to these juries to ensure the police officers involved would not be indicted. 

If a person is a victim of police brutality and wants to sue for damages, most states require that he/she submit a “Tort Claim Notice” advising the police department involved of his/her intentions.  It is also common practice for police officers and prosecutors to fabricate criminal charges against people who send such notices.

I represented a client who was criminally charged after filing such a notice.  When I appeared in court with him to answer these charges, the prosecuting attorney saw his name and remarked, “Since this guy sent a Tort Claim Notice, I’ll have to prosecute him.”

When I asked why a Tort Claim was more relevant than the facts of the case, she simply shrugged her shoulders.

Of course, I already knew the answer.  Whenever people make allegations of police brutality and/or misconduct, there arises an even greater incentive to prosecute them, regardless of their guilt or innocence, because a criminal conviction substantially weakens or obviates any claims for monetary damages against the police in a civil trial.

In an even more egregious case, police officers beat and kicked an African-American man to such a degree that he required hospitalization.  All the reports they filed described him as “combative,” except one.  One officer actually had the courage to file a contradictory report stating that this man had done nothing to warrant being beaten, or even arrested.

The prosecutor filed charges anyway, and we were assigned to defend this man; however, this contradictory report was never officially provided to us.  Fortunately, it was leaked to the news media and proved instrumental in our client being acquitted.  We later learned that supervisors at the police department had required several officers to undergo lie detector tests, not to determine whether excessive force had been used or who used it, but to uncover who leaked the report in the first place.  

A third criticism of the system that was recently exacerbated by the “escape” of “affluenza teen” Ethan Couch is the role that race and money play in the dispensing of “justice.”

After being involved in a drunk driving collision that killed four people, Couch, a white teenager and the progeny of wealth and privilege, was given a relatively light sentence of probation by a judge who often sentenced impoverished African-Americans to lengthy terms of incarceration for lesser crimes.

I once represented a young African-American boy who had been accused of shoplifting roughly five dollars worth of costume jewelry from a local department store.  Although the prosecutor was aware that the store claimed to have videotape evidence of the theft, he charged this boy without even bothering to obtain it.

The boy’s mother advised me that her son told her he had simply been trying on the jewelry, and had subsequently been injured by security personnel angry about him “playing around” in the store.  Although she had made several attempts to view the videotape for herself, she was constantly rebuffed.

After I agreed to take the case, I personally made an effort to view this tape as well, only to be told it had been “accidentally” erased.

The boy went to trial, and the judge found him guilty.  A few weeks later, at the disposition hearing, the judge gave him a relatively light punishment.  The probation officer assigned to the case remarked that it appeared the judge had changed his mind about the boy’s guilt.  I replied that, if this was indeed the case, it was still judicial gutlessness to punish an innocent person at all.

A short time later, a friend of mine told me about how his neighbor’s daughter-an attractive blonde teenager who had been videotaped stealing thousands of dollars from her employer-had used her family’s wealth and political connections to avoid prosecution.

The final criticism I will discuss is the criminal justice system’s inability to obtain convictions in police misconduct cases.  Even when these cases make it past corrupt prosecutors and bogus grand juries and actually go to trial, police officers are almost always acquitted by judges or petit juries

I also witnessed this first-hand.  In the jurisdiction where I practiced, two police officers had, in the words of a federal judge, “mercilessly” beat an inmate in the county jail to death.  Yet they were predictably acquitted by a federal petit jury.  (The state prosecutor, just as predictably, had refused to even file charges).

When reporters asked these jurors for the rationale behind their decision, their primary response was, “We just couldn’t send two policemen to jail.”

In other words, it’s not the egregiousness of the conduct or the potency of the evidence that matters.  Instead, it is the occupation of the accused that far too often determines the outcome of police misconduct cases.

Which brings me back to my law school instructor.  After class had ended I approached her and asked why she should not, morally at least, be considered a criminal herself.  After all, she had been complicit in sending a man she believed was innocent to prison.  “What difference is there,” I asked, “between a criminal who uses a weapon like a gun or knife to achieve unjust ends, and one who uses the legal system?”

In reality, there is little difference between the criminals who break the law and the criminals who claim to enforce it:  Both are usually amoral, mendacious sociopaths who routinely rationalize their criminality, and both are motivated by the belief that right or wrong doesn’t matter-it’s what you can get away with.  In fact, the only real difference is that lawbreaking criminals at least have to fear capture, while “law enforcing” criminals are allowed to act with immunity and/or impunity.

For example, the Perry Mason juror I described above did not get his Hollywood ending.  Instead two innocent men spent several years on death row until it was discovered that prosecutors had failed to turn over exculpatory evidence and that police officers had committed perjury to obtain convictions.  And even though three prosecutors and four police officers were brought to trial for their actions, a petit jury not only acquitted them, but even partied with them afterwards.

Amid these criticisms has come talk of reforms.  Well, I’m here to state, emphatically, that reform will never come from people inside the system.  Almost all the personal experiences I’ve related in this article occurred during my five short years of practicing law.  Imagine what attorneys see and experience over the course of decades, and the number of times each day the wrongs I’ve described are perpetuated throughout the United States.

What ultimately happens is conscientious and honest attorneys either become disillusioned and leave the profession, or they develop a cynicism in order to survive, operating within a system they don’t believe in, yet one that provides them with a decent living, and that serves as a potential springboard to judgeships or political office.

This is not to say that all attorneys develop such a cynicism.  But, even in its absence, attorneys are often hampered by the realities of their profession.  As a rule, they normally work in limited jurisdictions, and thus frequently interact with the same prosecutors and judges, which means the judge or prosecutor you think about criticizing today might be the same judge or prosecutor you need a favorable ruling or plea bargain from tomorrow.

If there is to be reform, it will have to come from people who are not beholden to the system, and, for this to happen, people have to be aware of how the system truly works-or, more accurately, does not work.  Hopefully this article will help supply some of that knowledge.

Until that time comes (if it ever does), I will reiterate what I’ve said in several previous Pravda.Ru articles:  America’s so-called “criminal justice system” is a racist, corrupt, perfidious, hypocritical, and fraudulent hoax that relentlessly seeks to obscure the truth rather than reveal it, and that works harder to propagate and rationalize injustice than it does to produce and promote justice.

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru



Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on January 3, 2016, With 4259 Reads Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

14 Responses to "America’s criminal justice system is a hoax"

  1. Luther Renfroe  January 4, 2016 at 10:27 am

    i just read an article were a judge got 28 years for selling people to a privately owned prison. i forget it’s name but there is a group of attorneys that work for free and there goal is to free innocent people. to date they have saved thousands of innocent human beings from prison in which most were serving 10-20-30 years to life. years ago i went to jail a couple of times. it was horrific. young girls begged to be released on there own or loose everything, job, apartment everything but it was rare for any to get out unless you had money. why??? it was a racket. they had people sleeping on cots where ever they could put them because for each person in county jail they received a lot of money from the government. now corporate and private prisons buy judges to fill there prison space. even members of congress and others in washington have been set up and sent to prison for crossing the kazarian mafia in washington.. many have said there is an evil so bad that runs washington you had better not speak of it above a whisper.

  2. Martin Maloney  January 4, 2016 at 5:10 am

    If you pass out blurb sheets about jury nullification to prospective jurors, then you can be jailed for “inhibiting prosecution.”

    Yet if a judge prohibits the introduction of that concept in “his” courtroom, then he cannot be jailed for “inhibiting defense.”

    Kinda backwards, dontcha think?

  3. Mike Kay  January 3, 2016 at 10:56 pm

    Thanx Mr. H, for confirming the reporting of Roberto Saviano.
    For those who don’t know, Mr S. reports on the interdependence of the criminal and so called legitimate systems. Mr S makes it clear that ostensibly legitimate systems cannot exist without the criminal systems, be they economic, political, or legal. This is the same conclusion reached by literally dozens of truth tellers.
    Mr H specifically affirms a central pillar of criminal thought; laws are to broken, but the rules are inviolate. Rules are the uncompromising hidden structure. Thus wealth buys freedom, laws are used as a hammer, and the duplicity is in place to conceal this reality from view.
    The rules, not the laws, are what run the global society, and Mr H makes this abundantly clear.
    The implications are sobering.

  4. Danshee  January 3, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    A hierarchical system (and such is the jurisditional system) corrupts the easiest and surest top down. Why ? In a bottom up corruption all the higher level safety circuits generate a lot of friction for the corruption to proceed, the more the higher up the corruption proceeds. In a Top-down almost no such friction exists, on the contrary there will be less and less friction at any lower level it corrupts.
    One can therefore safely assume that the USA today is a thoroughly corrupt entity in no way different then say Mexico, Georgia etc. This corruption is very detrimental for the average citizen but VERY beneficial to the top level, those are virtually allowed to do anything if they have enough power in their back. Does this ring a bell ? Another very substantial benefit is the complete sidetracking of the political process which has only the function of a front, a facade, a theater as in Hollywood. In reality everything really important emanates through the corrupt channels.
    Reform is therefore only possible in killing the head first, top-down approach, anything else is 100% certain fake, false flag nonsense fear show garbage. .

  5. Ajeocci  January 3, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Explore the Grand Jury system in America. Total fraud from top to bottom. Check the percentage of indictments the U.S. Attorneys obtain. Find out how the Form AO190 is handled. Often the Jury Foreman’s signature is forged, signifying a concurrence vote of jurors when, in fact, there was none. Instead of being part of the trial record, the forms are often kept in the U.S. Attorney’s office files, unavailable to the defendant. Court records are further purged to remove any hinderance to conviction. Find out how many judges and prosecutors are heavily invested in Corrections Corp. of America. Every conviction is money in the pockets of court officials. Justice, you ask? Nope, just us.

  6. Preston James, Ph.D  January 3, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    A Truly outstanding article which is sadly an accurate report of how the US Legal System really functions. It is based on lies, deception, manipulation. Justice is usually bought and corporations get special legal privileges. What else could we expect when our whole legal system is franchised by the British BAR like our Banking is franchised by the City of London. Our US Constitution was set up to bar the use of titles and nobility in America, but licensed attorneys who are all licensed under the British BAR System carry the title Esquire which is technically illegal. What else could we expect for a legal system set up and run by the Khazarian Mafia which is based on lies, deception,manipulation and is the most evil group that ever lived.

    • jo phoenix  January 4, 2016 at 12:21 am

      Preston, you side exactly what I concluded, only more shot and better, thank you

  7. paul becke  January 3, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    “When justice leaves a society, what are its leaders but mighty bands of robbers.”
    – St Augustine of Hippo

    I believe in parts of the US, the police, themselves, are in on the act, actually ‘bona fide’ highwaymen, confiscating possessions of motorists, sometimes including even their vehicle. They don’t wear masks though.

  8. cynthiamaccioli  January 3, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    You try to lead an honest life, support the police and fire departments, contribute to their yearly campaigns , obey all the rules, don’t even get parking tickets, lived in your own home for 45 years and then one day a cop knocks on your door, demands to come in, you refuse until you see a search warrant, close the door, he calls for a 6 car backup, tells you he will break down your door and drag you out by the hair so you let him in, he then terrorizes a 3 year old by throwing his grandmother against the wall and hard cuffs her for resisting arrest. A 67 year old woman, now with a record, thrown in the slammer for 2 days in solitary confinement because I had the audacity to question the legality of a policeman’s action. Nothing puts the spotlight on our CRIMINAL justice system more than front line experience.

  9. Amelius  January 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Great article.

    The CRIMINAL JUST-US system only serves the criminals who write and enforce the laws. Just us, being those privileged criminals who wear the black robes and suits, those with celebrity status and those criminals who wear blue and carry either a pentagram or hexagram badge. There’s no such thing as a fair trial in our current Jew-diciary system. It doesn’t help that privately owned prisons depend on keeping their population near capacity for greater profit potential, either.

    A while ago I read that people applying for jobs as police officers were getting turned down for scoring above 110 on their IQ tests…They don’t want people who have the ability to think critically, all they want is some meat head who will take and carry out orders without a second thought. Apparently, having the IQ of a child in the third grade is a prerequisite for law enforcement these days. (No offense to children in the third grade.)

  10. wjabbe  January 3, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Mr. Earl Carey in the above book has excellent suggestions for correcting our totally corrupt system of so called “Justice” in America. One of them is to replace the corrupt, secret and slow court system with a new one where dispute resolution, including those of all government officials, up to and including the King President and Vice President, are resolved by randomly chosen citizen committees of no more than about 5 members, with a different committee appointed for each dispute. No lawyers would be permitted on any of these committees. Also, all secrecy would be eliminated from the system with stiff fines and jail time for anyone obstructing the process. The details are provided in the above great book. Of course the entrenched lying cheating lawyers would fight tooth and nail to prevent any reforms. Only citizens of other professions could implement them. As you say, it is going to get much worse before it gets any better. In fact the country may have to come to an end before any changes are made in the corrupt system.

  11. paul becke  January 3, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Or you could say : “America’s hoax justice-system is criminal ;” indeed, it strikes me as more apposite.

  12. wjabbe  January 3, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Quote from page 331, “IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America” by Earl Carey, 1992:
    “At every juncture in Carey-Gate, experienced attorneys seized the opportunity to train law students in their unethical and illegal tactics. During the litigation of my case against IBM, the Brown and Bain attorneys included law students at my depositions and at my court hearings. The Ninth Circuit involved law students from the University of Washington in my appeal from summary judgment. Joe Moore, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, had a law student assist him on my case for the violation of my Constitutional rights in St. Louis. Rather than try to conceal their abominable behavior from the law students, the experienced attorneys made every effort to teach them that this is the way lawyers do business. In this manner, the torch of tyranny is passed into the greedy little hands of the next generation of lawyers.”
    Mr. Carey lists no less than 42 federal judges by name and location who willfully and with impunity violated the rules and law they took a meaningless oath to follow.

    • wjabbe  January 3, 2016 at 10:49 am

      This is an excellent but very depressing article. All these obscenities in our corrupt so called justice system in America were fully documented in the above book by Earl Carey in 1992. Lawyers have bad reputations going way back in history. In the mythical perfect society of Utopia of 1516. lawyers were banned because they had the reputation of “disguising” matters. John Keats is quoted: “I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.” Lawyers dominate all three branches of our government. They have corrupted every branch and decimated any checks and balances. Lawyers must be banned from holding any office or position of employment in our government if our system is to survive. Lawyers are the only so called “orofession” taught to lie and cheat in higher education.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login