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
Well everyone is assuming America, but did you know there are other countries?
In most places, Judges decide if you have to stay in jail or can be released on bail. This will depend on how risky they deem it (like if you’re a potential serial killer? you stay in)
The reason you then have to wait depends on
1. how many trials there are to do first – maybe there’s not enough lawyers or court space, and sometimes trials go on far longer than people expect
2. the prosecution and defence need time to do their jobs properly! unlike how TV shows it they have to find the evidence and plan their arguments well in advance, this might take *ages* especially if it’s a complex issue.
On a Louis Theroux documentary I watched, they mentioned that the majority of people awaiting trial are delayed because the defense needs more time, and that generally, since the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the longer they wait the better (as witnesses forget things, they can’t be found to testify, evidence gets lost etc.).
I’m no expert, but in many jurisdictions, the prosecution must be ready for trial in a maximum of 3-6 months.
I would like to see stats on it.
When i got locked up they gave me a chance for a speedy trial. I would have been sentenced in less than 90 days. But i wanted to fight so i had to turn that down. My actual trial was almost 2 years later. If i had not been Able to pay bail I would have had to sit there for the entire time.
You get an offer for speedy, but its almost always a bad idea. Then you have to pay bond(if its allowed). The next trial is set when the court has time. Since america loves to prosecute people it could be years
Like any chokepoint in a system, too much going in for the processing function. Think queing for a haircut.
You can reduce the amount going in, increase the processing function, or cut back the process. Cutting back the service is cheapest. In a barbers you could offer buzzcuts only via one chair. In justice this means pleading out.
Reducing the customers would mean decriminalising offences, or reducing reoffending. More barbers would mean more courts. The first is politically expensive, the latter also expensive by raising taxes.
I recommend people watch the documentary “13th” – it shines a cold light on justice in America.
To add what other people already answered, the prosecution can request delays and extra time if they are not ready. That’s what kept happening in Kalief Browder’s case and why he spent 3 years in jail awaiting trial over a stolen backpack charge.
Most of those folks are poor and can’t afford bail so sometimes spend more time in jail than they would for the actual offense. It’s a gross violation of constitutional rights, but only happens to poor people so not much gets done about it.
Then you get a few rare cases where the crime is egregious enough that bail is flatly denied but the case is very slow to get to trial (Eg mass shooters) because the prosecutor absolutely does not want to fuck it up on a technicality so spends a lot of effort making sure every i is dotted and T is crossed. In these cases the defense is often also OK with it being slow walked – there’s zero chance of an acquittal and the defense goal is to secure a custodial sentence rather than the death penalty.
“Speedy” is subjective. Some people actually end up pleading guilty to the crime because the time spent waiting on trial in jail is longer than the sentence would require them to spend in prison. It becomes a point of, “if you plead guilty today, you’ll go home. You’ve spent your time.” So people will plead guilty at that point to go home as opposed to waiting for their day in court even thought they are innocent. They just want to go home, and then after, they have a criminal record that makes it hard to get jobs despite never actually having done the crime they plead guilty to.
Last week tonight with John Oliver will give a far more cohesive breakdown of how fucked our US court system is if you Google “John Oliver bail reform.”
The US bail system is basically a way to keep poor people subservient to a broken system. A wealthy person in the same situation will afford bail and win their case. A poor person, that can’t afford bail, will spend their time in jail awaiting court, plead guilty to leave, and then be subjected to the fall out.
People are confined to keep poor people poor. That’s the TL;DR of the matter.
Because the US justice system is fucked up and built to harm people with lower income (and by extension, people of color). You’re stuck with paying court fees, for a lawyer, fines, lab tests, probation. Add being homeless to being poor, and it’s almost impossible to pay for everything and to make it to court/probation appointments. There are people who’ve been in Rikers Island for years before they see their trial date. It’s awful and is just one of many parts of the US criminal justice system that need total overhaul.
Some info from the [Prison Policy Initiative](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/pretrial_detention/):
Key Statistics:
Percent of people in city and county jails being held pretrial: 67% +
Median bail bond for a felony: $10,000 +
Average yearly income of a man who can’t afford bail: $16,000. For women: $11,000 +
Percent of women who can’t afford bail who have minor children: 66% +
Percent of pretrial population that is Black: 43% +
Share of jail population growth since 1983 caused by pretrial detention: 63% +
Annual national cost of pretrial detention: $13.6 billion
Sometimes, for those who know they’ll be found guilty, it’s a strategy. Some jurisdictions award significantly less prison time for extended pretrial custody.
But usually it’s the courts being busy.
Latest Answers