I keep hearing about people in jail for 3+ years awaiting trial. If they’re ‘innocent until proven guilty’ I dont understand why they are confined. I thought there was a right to a speedy trial also or is that not really the case?
In: 235
I’m not sure how this works in other countries, but in my country, they can keep you in jail before the trial for three reasons:
1) There is a high risk that you will have an impact on the witnesses
2) There is a high risk that you will repeat the offense
3) There is a high risk that you will escape
So when you are in jail prior to the trial, it’s not because you are being punished, but it is to avert these risks. If some of the risks stop in the meantime, e.g. all the witnesses have been questioned and there is no longer a risk that you will influence them, then you will be released from prison until the trial starts.
If you are found guilty in the end, then the time you have spent in prison prior to the trial is deducted from your sentence. If you are found not guilty, then you receive a financial compensation for the time they kept you in jail.
And regarding the speedy trial, it all sounds nice in theory, but in practice it is often not possible to complete it so quickly.
The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” only applies during a criminal trial, not to being detained, arrested, or held before trial.
The obligation is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defense to prove they are not guilty.
The right to a “speedy trial” is frequently waived by the defense attorneys, as failing to do is frequently seen as it might “create a worse situation with the prosecutor or judge”.
Overall the court system is designed to wear you down.
I spent two weeks in jail for a crime I didn’t do while waiting to be arraigned. Only a misdemeanor too. It was $25,000 to bond out on intake night or wait for the DA to drop charges. 14 days it took, time I lost due to a false report.
Provisional jailtime can be dictated for a multiple of -motivated- reasons, all of which must be found within the law itself. (For example, you can dictate provisional jailtime if the person is a flight-risk in a case of homicide, and such a thing must be reasoned, but you can’t arbitrarily dictate provisional jailtime because the “person is ugly”, for example.)
The State (As in, Statal, not US states) must compensate the person in the event they served jailtime and are absolved (This is a case-to-case thing though, there is no universal standard to how much they must be compensated)
Just a note, jail and prison are not the same. Jail is where you wait for trial (usually if you’re a high risk of running away or if you can’t afford bail) and prison is where you go if you’re found guilty
Because the vast bulk of resources flows to the police.
If you go around and look at a general job description of a police officer, you’re going to find something like: “To press charges and bring cases before the courts”. Bean counting being what it is, most cops are certainly internally rated on how many tickets they write and how many ‘bad guys’ they deliver to the courts. Despite the rosy picture they present to the public.
Now, think back. When’s the last time you heard a politician say something like: “Crime is out of control! We need to hire more judges and build more courts!” I’d bet… never. Instead you’re going to hear “More cops!” “Mandatory minimums!” “More tough laws!” “No bail for scum criminals!”
What does this mean in the real world? It means an ever-growing capacity to jam new criminal justice ‘customers’ into the court system, while ignoring the similar need of additional resources of those courts to deal with that flood of cases. Tougher sentences also mean that there’s more incentive for the accused to appeal and fight. And the perception that someone might do more crime while out on bail means that politicians are loath to actually do anything to get people out.
Sometimes people are accused of doing something bad, like breaking the law, and they have to go to jail until they go to court to see if they’re guilty or not. But, sometimes there are a lot of people waiting to go to court and it takes a long time. Just like waiting in line for a ride at the amusement park, sometimes it takes a while to get your turn.
The bail process is a joke, and the way the it works out for a lot of jurisdictions is that they create a shit hole jail. People don’t wanna be there and they know it’s gonna be forever to go to court. So they beg and plead with their defender to make a deal just to leave. A lot of cases don’t even go to all the way because of plea deals
It depends.
Speaking as an attorney with a bit of experience in the federal criminal justice system, trial delays often result from the defendant’s decisions.
Defendants rarely want to go to trial. They’d prefer to put off trial as long as possible or avoid it altogether. So defendants often waive their speedy trial rights to have more time to negotiate a plea bargain, investigate their case, etc.
As for why they’re incarcerated before trial—at least in the federal system, the court will evaluate several risk factors, including the alleged crime’s nature, criminal history, etc. Basically, the court evaluates the likelihood that if released, the person poses a danger to others or might flee the court’s jurisdiction before trial.
If someone gets arrested for committing bank fraud, has no passport, no priors, etc, they’re more likely to go home and wait for trial.
If someone gets arrested for a violent offense, has a history of violent offenses, leaves the country often, etc, they’re almost invariably waiting in jail.
There is a right to a speedy trial, but the defendant has to petition for it. At that point, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 sets various deadlines for your case. But if your case can’t be heard within that time (usually because the court’s trial docket is packed), that’s not in and of itself a violation of your right to a speedy trial. To determine that, you look at the length of delay, the cause for the delay, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.
Asserting the right to a speedy trial can be a pretty big gamble. You’re essentially telling the court that you’re ready for trial in a couple of months, so you really need to have all your evidence and witnesses ready to go, which is probably not possible in high-stakes or complicated cases. But if you do assert that right, and the prosecution can’t be ready by a reasonable date certain, then that may open the door to either releasing you pre-trial, or dismissing the case and bringing charges later. (Note: double jeopardy has not attached yet because no jury has been empaneled.)
Latest Answers