urbanSTL

I asked for specific examples and all I get is it happens nearly everyday and a cliche?



Well I'm sure rightly convicted criminals of dangerous crimes are getting shortened sentences, put on probabtion, or even no jail time nearly every day too. And when someone is a victim of a violent crime and the suspect is someone with a long criminal history of violent crimes, I'm sure the victim will feel better knowing the suspect was back out on the street because some of those convictions may not have been "legitimate".

jlblues wrote:

buckethead wrote:Do you have any examples of someone getting arrested just because they are a repeat offender?

I wasn't speaking specifically of loitering offenses, I am sure very few of those ever lead to a conviction. But, sure, it happens nearly every day. Where do you think the phrase "round up the usual suspects" comes from? (No, not the movie...) County and city police officers routinely arrest people with the only evidence of guilt being that the officer recognizes them, and they were in the general vicinity of a crime. They then "tailor" their report to justify the arrest. If the defendant has a rap sheet, they can't testify in their own defense without that coming out in trial, so they generally take a plea bargain because they don't want to risk getting a much longer sentence. Unfortunately, a majority of those between the ages of 18 and 30 in certain parts of the city and county DO have a rap sheet. Public defenders and prosecutors alike negotiate light sentences because they know the defendant probably isn't good for the crime, but neither want to take it to trial. So, the long and short, who knows how many of those convictions are legitimate?



Many city residents know that this is standard practice by the police force and the courts, so what do you think is going through their minds when they DO serve on a jury?

buckethead wrote:I asked for specific examples and all I get is it happens nearly everyday and a cliche?



Well I'm sure rightly convicted criminals of dangerous crimes are getting shortened sentences, put on probabtion, or even no jail time nearly every day too. And when someone is a victim of a violent crime and the suspect is someone with a long criminal history of violent crimes, I'm sure the victim will feel better knowing the suspect was back out on the street because some of those convictions may not have been "legitimate".

LOL. What do you want? Names, phone numbers, case numbers? Right.



The criminal court system exists to make sure justice is done and to protect the rights of the accused. It does not exist simply to mete out punishment, to someone, anyone, to avenge what was done to a victim. I am certainly not going to defend that the system is achieving its mandate. The system is broken. But there are a whole range of reasons as to why, including politics and corruption, besides what you so simply refine down to just too many benevolent judges. Would your victim of violent crime be satisfied that someone was put in jail for the crime simply because that person had done other bad things, and regardless of whether that person had due process? Maybe, but I don't think that is going to be very good for society in the long run.

I agree the system is broken. I think you are way over estimating how many times someone gets arrested for being a "ususal suspect"



My point was the theoritica victim of a violent crime would not have been the victim if the suspect was not on the street to commit more crimes.



I'm not really sure what you are suggesting to fix the system? I agree again, that the criminal court system exists to make sure justice is done. But I think in some cases they are not doing their jobs.



And I've never said I just wanted punishment to anyone to avenge a crime...

buckethead wrote:I agree the system is broken. I think you are way over estimating how many times someone gets arrested for being a "ususal suspect"

Talk to any public defender, or even a prosecutor (although you might have to get the prosecutor good and drunk first). They will tell you how many cases they have seen where the police obfuscated the truth and how many times people have been arrested and held for trial with no evidence other than that they were in the vicinity of the crime, or someone saw somebody that roughly resembled the defendant, or as I said before, the officer just happened to recognize the defendant from a previous arrest.



What the general public does not know is that these people very often can not make bail and, because the system is swamped, they end up sitting in jail for up to a year. When the trial finally approaches, then the prosecutor realizes that they don't have a case, and the charges are dropped. Is there any compensation for that time? Of course not. And nobody cares, because of course, "even if they aren't good for this crime, they probably did something else anyway".

buckethead wrote:My point was the theoritica victim of a violent crime would not have been the victim if the suspect was not on the street to commit more crimes.



I'm not really sure what you are suggesting to fix the system? I agree again, that the criminal court system exists to make sure justice is done. But I think in some cases they are not doing their jobs.



And I've never said I just wanted punishment to anyone to avenge a crime...

First and foremost, take politics out of the system. No judge or prosecuting attorney should ever be elected to begin with, and should be required to resign for a period of time prior to pursuing any higher elected office. It creates an inherent conflict of interest. Right now you have a system where judges and prosecutors influence, and in some cases even conspire with, one another, with the carrot-and-stick of getting re-elected.



For every case of someone having been convicted of a crime and released early, only to repeat offend, I can show you a case of an innocent person sitting in jail, or someone with a ten-year mandatory sentence for stealing a bottle of vitamins, or because they had a joint in their car when they were pulled over for a traffic violation. You want to know why so many criminals are released from prison early? Ask your attorney friends about the three strikes law and mandatory, immutable sentences...

Are you suggesting that the polititians elect the judges to office?

crbswiss wrote:Are you suggesting that the polititians elect the judges to office?

No, we do. Not in every state, but most. Look at the ballot next time you vote.

You missunderstood, I was asking if this is your alternative to the public voting on judges. I do my best to be an informed voter thank you very much! How do you propose judges be selected?

Actually, in St. Louis the way we select judges is called the "Missouri plan." A non-patisan commission makes three recommendations to the governor when there is a vacancy on the bench. The governor then appoints one. After that, they are only on the ballot for retention, not election per se.

^ Sorry, I did misunderstand. How about setting up about a balanced statewide commission made up of members of the state bar association, retired judges, qualified court system administrative types, community leaders, etc. The commission would nominate and vet candidates. Candidates would be judged not on political affiliations, connections or number of convictions, but simply on their experience and the quality of their track records, i.e. if they were lower court judges - the number of complaints and decisions overturned, and if they were attorneys, again experience and complaints.



To further remove politics from the equation: The commission would routinely nominate and vet a group of candidates, say every two years, and then appointments would be made from this group either by selecting at random or on some type of rotating basis. And, no member of the commission can nominate someone from their district, members of their law firm, friends, relatives, etc. and must abstain when voting on such a candidate.



Far from perfect I realize, but better than the status quo.

the car clouting is a bit of a sore subject for me. my gf has been parking on St. Charles by Lucas Park for over 6 months without a problem. Then, one night she doesn't think and leaves some donuts in the back seat. Smash and grab later and somebody got a sugar fix and a black nightie (don't ask Wink ). We were upset, but actually had a good laugh at our misfortune and thought we learned our lesson.



Two weeks later, the first time she parked by my house after the incident, we made sure that there was nothing at all in view in the car. Lo and behold, we came out in the morn to find that someone had smashed in her window with a brick, broken her center console and tried (in vain) to extract her stereo.



Moral of the story: being 'street smart' may make you less likely to be a victim, but is no sort of guarantee or excuse.



Don't even get us started on the fact that she had received 4 bogus parking tickets on that street (later thrown out in court) between midnight and 4am in the two weeks prior. I hope that the police would have more important things to do at that time (like keeping an eye out for all the clouters) than write bogus parking tickets.

THIS IS EXACTLY what will prevent the city/downtown from coming back. Where are the police that walk the streets downtown at night? I'm so tired of apologetic libs always defending these thugs (jblues) and the idiot judges who refuse to punish them. "oh, I should have known to NOT park my car on the street!" "it's MY fault!" what a f ing joke.

This is not only a STL problem. This summer my girlfriend parked her car on the street in DT Chicago and had her radio stolen in broad daylight. Every large city in the world has to contend with these issues.

Steve wrote:Actually, in St. Louis the way we select judges is called the "Missouri plan." A non-patisan commission makes three recommendations to the governor when there is a vacancy on the bench. The governor then appoints one. After that, they are only on the ballot for retention, not election per se.

Yes, I should have clarified that, but the end result is the same. Politics and the justice system are hopelessly intertwined. Politicians are always going to select judges that think like they do and that will garner the most votes for them. Voters will retain judges that decide cases the way they would. I don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind. All of the above leads to an inherent bias.



As an aside, some of the most experienced trial lawyers are public defenders, yet I think you would be hard-pressed to find a judge that came from the public defender system. Why? Politics.

JCity wrote:THIS IS EXACTLY what will prevent the city/downtown from coming back. Where are the police that walk the streets downtown at night? I'm so tired of apologetic libs always defending these thugs (jblues) and the idiot judges who refuse to punish them. "oh, I should have known to NOT park my car on the street!" "it's MY fault!" what a f ing joke.

I am anything but a "lib". And, I will admit that I used to think the way you do, until I found out how messed up the system has really become (ok, it has been that way for a long time), mostly because of politics and politicians (on both sides) trying to appease their constituencies (and thus get re-elected). The result is a lot of misguided laws that have the opposite effect of their intended purpose and a lot of judges with a political bias. It is far from a simply liberal vs. conservative issue though. Some of the toughest judges are liberal Democrats and some of the most lenient conservative Republicans. Right now the "justice" system takes young kids with a relatively minor infraction such as shoplifting, turns them into hard-core criminals, and then churns them back out onto the streets, pissed off at society and with absolutely no chance to get a job and become self-sufficient. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle your representaive sits, that should be unacceptable.

I suppose they had to have something to carry all the spoils from the other cars on the street.

crbswiss wrote:I suppose they had to have something to carry all the spoils from the other cars on the street.

Are you kidding? That was their new house!

I’m getting frustrated with the car break-ins downtown. I live right in the “hot-zone” downtown. For the third time, I’ve had a friend visiting and their car was broken into. One is a friend from Florida who has been considering a move to St. Louis. My other two friends live in the suburbs of St. Louis, one of which is currently contemplating a move to the city. The good news is that I don’t think it has discouraged them from moving to the city.



I always instruct my friends not leave anything in view, etc. and it still doesn’t seem to help. I like the idea of CCTV cameras being installed, but not sure how much that would help.

you guys may have to hire your own security force, ie..CWE. At least until Larry Rice organization relocates.

courtland wrote:you guys may have to hire your own security force, ie..CWE. At least until Larry Rice organization relocates.

Is it really Larry Rice's people that are doing all the break-ins? It just seems like people are assuming this. To me, I would think that the people who are breaking into cars are young, poor, unemployed kids, who have some type of dwelling to return to at night.

Yes, it could be. Washington Ave is a hot spot. Most people drive to get there. Parking is exceedingly limited on the street itself, and many people park around Lucas Park because it's close. That area is poorly lit, and bereft of any kind of life--the whole "eyes on the street thing." Should come as no surprise that it's a hot spot for car break-ins, homeless or no.



I'm not saying that homeless people don't commit crimes. What I am saying is that your typical criminal is young, inadequately trained or educated, with few prospects in a legitimate economic activity. Most importantly, however, THEY HAVE AN ADDRESS. My armchair analysis is that most of the homeless are societal drop-outs, ie don't care enough to break into cars. Beg for change, live off of the generosity of the religious, and just generally do nothing. I think that those who commit most crimes are those on the VERGE of homelessness, those at the very bottom of the socio-economic regime. They haven't "dropped out" of the system all together, they're taking the criminal route to maintain a modicum of a living.



That said, I could be wrong. I'm just saying that it seems as if people are jumping to conclusions that it MUST be the homeless. Again, the vast majority of criminal defendants have an address. It may not be on Westmoreland, but it's a place to lay one's head on at night.