Then those 366 shouldn't be in jail. They're innocent people. The idea that we lock people up pre-trial is absolutely bonkers. Bail should be granted in all but the most extreme cases, and for any who aren't granted bail they should be at trial ASAP.
Yah I should have clarified - 'bail should be granted' meaning people being released without cash bail - a promise to appear, holding passports, maybe other restrictions, I think those are pretty reasonable.
They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question.
And yes, the entire system is messed up. These people are being treated as definitely guilty when their status is in question. Sometimes for offenses that would not even require the level of incarceration they are at. You'll spend 15 months in jail awaiting trial for an offense that carries a 6 month maximum sentence. And even if they release you after 6 months because it would be cruel to incarcerate you "temporarily" for longer than the sentence to determine if you should even be incarcerated, it's not like you can get that 6 months back if you're not proven guilty. (Because the court doesn't prove you're innocent, just that it can't prove you're guilty, which is different.)
But your last sentence comes back around to the problem of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP could very well be a year and a half.
The system defers to assuming guilt because of fear. If you defer to assuming no guilt and you're wrong, you could be wrong in a very bad way. If you lock up an innocent man for 10 years, people will shake their heads and say "What a shame." If you let a murderer free while awaiting trial and they kill someone else, you are going to get absolutely fucked.
And while the chance of the second is pretty low, it's not a chance any of them want to take. It's Pascal wager, but for crime. And we know crime and criminals exist.
>>>They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question.
They are technically innocent. That is the central assumption in any good justice system.
>>>But your last sentence comes back around to the problem of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP could very well be a year and a half.
I don't think anyone would consider that reasonable if they were in custody. Let's say you were charged with something (that you didn't do, let's say) - what would you consider a fair amount of time before a trial?
You do understand I'm describing the problem, not advocating for the system, right?
And presumption of innocence is a matter during the trial.
Police can and have diverted, detained, and otherwise interfered with people who have committed no crime. All I will say is that it's a complex situation and that while keeping people in jail for over a year before we even get to the trial to determine their status is not what we should be doing, the complete opposite of not detaining anyone seems equally bad in a completely different way.
I do understand that, but it's a very pernicious problem, and the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" is just some legal idea we eye-roll at and don't actually believe is at the root of it.
It should not be just a matter for the trial! It should be treated as actually true from the first time an officer interacts with a suspect.
>>Police can and have diverted, detained, and otherwise interfered with people who have committed no crime
Yep, and we need to push back against that in a much stronger way, police have far too broad powers to detain with no consequences.
The diversion/detention can be as innocuous as blocking off a road for a parade or preventing people from walking into an area with an active shooter.
In both cases, I'd be prevented from executing perfectly legal actions even though I've personally committed on crime. Because ultimately, the difference between that and being jailed awaiting a trial is a matter of degree.
And most of our ideals are far loftier than the reality of how we implement them.
And I think they should be. We should aspire to be better and to look for ways to be better. But we must also contend with reality. And when ideals and reality are in conflict, reality is going to win. Until we find out how to better adapt to reality or to adapt our ideals to reality.
They're not infinite, but I can't think of a concrete reason judges, lawyers, and juries aren't scalable to population. I can think of systemic limits, but none of them feel immutable.
You have issues with training and promotion in the cases of judges and lawyers. Not insurmountable, but there will be a lag if we were to say "We need X% more lawyers now".
You also have the issue that in order to guarantee a trial as soon as all non-people concerns are resolved, you'll need judges and lawyers doing nothing. Once you're at 100% capacity, any additional case has to wait. And the length of the wait is indeterminate.
The real problem, people-wise, is juries. Juries are selected from the community at large. They're vetted and questioned. This takes time. And not for the criminals, but for the juries themselves. You could easily wind up with essentially professional juries, which runs counter to the idea of "jury of your peers".
And beyond that, all these cases need to be tried somewhere.
This is actually more of a funding problem than a supply problem. In many jurisdictions, the criminal justice system is expected to pay for itself, in part or nearly in total.
If we’re talking supply and demand, reducing the supply of prosecutions for victimlesss crimes stuff like drug use and possession, reproductive decisions, and etc. might help alleviate the demand at courthouses.
If I have 366 people in jail today awaiting trial and I try one case a day on average, it would be a year before you get to the last person.
Yes, the problem is alleviated with more judges, more lawyers, and more juries, but that's the problem. Those resources are not infinite.