Politics

Suffer No Innocents: Identifying Corruption in America’s Judicial System

Capitalist production theory prioritizes convictions over truth, resulting in innocent people being punished for crimes they did not commit. This corruption in American courts undermines proper justice and could affect any of us. We must fight back against unfair plea bargains and raise awareness of judicial crookedness.
By
America’s Judicial System

Via Shutterstock.

January 24, 2025 06:50 EDT
 user comment feature
Check out our comment feature!
visitor can bookmark

Capitalist production theory is killing our justice system. It creates an unnecessary need to convict more people whether they are guilty or innocent.

The notion that the state should meet a high burden of proof is an ancient one. At the end of the first century, the Roman emperor Trajan voiced the principle that it’s better a guilty person go unpunished than an innocent one be condemned. A contemporary influence for the framers of the United States Constitution, the English judge Sir William Blackstone, gave us Blackstone’s formulation: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

This ideal is a bedrock concept in the American justice system. It is philosophically acceptable that a few guilty people go unpunished if the state is held to a higher standard. But that higher standard only means something if it protects the innocent. If innocent people are routinely thrown in with the guilty, that’s an indication that the system is corrupt.

A corrupt judicial system endangers us all

One of the primary reasons plea bargaining exists is to convict those who are likely to be acquitted at trial. From a prosecutor’s view, “half a loaf is better than none.” This is the technowar mentality at its most insidious.

A prosecutor is measured by their ability to get convictions. University of Chicago law professor Albert Alschuler explains the logic, saying that the length or severity of the sentence doesn’t really matter when stacked up against the political value of making the maximum number of convictions. He quotes a Chicago prosecutor who said “When we have a weak case for any reason, we’ll reduce to almost anything rather than lose.” Does that sound like justice to you?

Alschuler quotes another prosecutor from downstate Illinois who looked down on big city prosecutors who were too willing to make deals and close cases. According to the downstate attorney, “The only time we make a deal is when there is a weakness in the case.” Even though they may have had different reasons, both big-city and small-town prosecutors end up with the same result: The innocent are punished with the guilty.

When prosecutors only care about winning, society loses. They hold immense power in the American justice system. We trust them to make the right decisions and remove dangerous people from society. But bad policies like minimum sentences and perverse production incentives produce bad outcomes.

Everyone should care if an innocent person is sent to prison or coerced into admitting to something they didn’t do. If an innocent person takes the blame for a crime, the real culprit still walks among us, ready and willing to commit more crimes! Another reason is that you or I could be the next innocent person chewed up by our unjust legal system. There is no telling when an ambitious prosecutor might come for one of us. We are the ones who could pay for turning a blind eye to injustice.

The war on crime’s innocent victims

Just as technowar senselessly murdered innocent Vietnamese civilians, production demands in the war on crime claim victims as well. Production measures that put conviction rates ahead of protecting the innocent are a threat to the rule of law. A justice system where justice is a secondary concern does not deserve public support. It is corrupt. The rush to pump up conviction rates with plea bargains has basically obliterated the right to trial more than 90% of the time.

Yet there is little recognition by the American political class that any changes might be needed. Both major parties have enthusiastically passed “tough on crime” measures over the past few decades that contribute to the problems described here. Neither major party is inclined to end the war on crime because they’re afraid of looking weak. Any move toward social justice courts accusations of being “soft on crime” or “soft on criminals” — a perceived weakness in political culture. In the view of the American political class, protecting the innocent is less important than appearing strong.

We must fight back

There are three ways that the American public can counteract this travesty of justice. The first is demanding a jury trial. If you are charged and you know you are innocent, don’t take the deal. Refuse to confess to anything you have not done. Make prosecutors put you on trial and prove their case.

The second way we can fight back is by refusing to convict. Jury trials are an outlet for radical democracy and justice. Every jury member has the ability to say no. Every jury member has power. If you believe a person is being unfairly prosecuted, refuse to convict. Familiarize yourself with the concept of “jury nullification.”

A third way is to trash talk plea bargain convictions to everyone you know about this injustice. Exercise your voice. Exercise your power. Our justice system has been corrupted. There has to be a better way.

Let’s make them pay.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Comment

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Atul Singh
23 days ago

Does the tough on crime message resonate because there is actually too much crime in American cities?

Many friends speak about crime and grime spreading across the US. San Francisco is now Gotham City where many people feel unsafe. Are people going to accept any dilutions in prosecutorial power that is not part of a broader promise to bring down crime?

Support Fair Observer

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

Will you support FO’s journalism?

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

Donation Cycle

Donation Amount

The IRS recognizes Fair Observer as a section 501(c)(3) registered public charity (EIN: 46-4070943), enabling you to claim a tax deduction.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries