registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 106 of registry matters. Happy Saturday night. It’s cold here in Georgia. Larry, how are you tonight? from the land of enchantment, that’s where you are right? That is correct. It is just fantastic. It was 58 degrees here today. It was up that high but last night was like the worst. I ended up going up to Atlanta. Oh, I have a story to tell you. Do you know a particular person named Richard from up in New England who talks money talks about like parking the car pops up. I’ve heard him speak Yes. He he was in town last night. So I drove up to Atlanta and had dinner with him. He is a he’s a very unique individual. I must say he’s a good guy. I like Richard a lot. But he’s a he’s a very unique individual. He talks funny. Well, he’s used to he’s used to being by the harbor. Yeah, he’s definitely something about some high
And parking cars and whatnot but he he deals in antiques and he has some very interesting stories to tell about antique things that he collects and, and whatnot.
So yes, he’s a nice guy. But so you know we again here we are with another podcast like we did last week we have a ginormous amount of content cover and we couldn’t really figure out a whole lot to cut out and so we’re just going to dive right in and we’re going to like this is going to be like this, this the speed episode. And we are going to start with an episode excuse me and an article from the New York Times about Bill Cosby. He loses an appeal of his sexual assault conviction. Deep first, what do you think he’s going to try and like run this up the flagpole and try and get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear it? Of course he will. You think and then would you suspect that they will hear it or not? I suspect the future realize you don’t play well. Yes, I suspect they will. What is your What is your beef with what they’re actually doing here like with his appeal? I want to the decision is 24 pages.
I did not read all of it particularly interested in only one part of the appeal, which is of the of the, of the number of issues he raised, which there were a lot of them. And you have to go to about page 23. Because otherwise they’re summarizing testimony since he went to trial. So you have to go to you have to go deep into the opinion before you got to where my concerns are, which are rule forel. For be, and we’ve talked about that on the podcast on on water more episodes in the past. And that’s the rule that allows for admission of prior bad acts. And it is very, very dangerous. And when when they can put your prior bad acts into the equation and the guilty innocent space that they always get to come in after you’re convicted. But when they can put in prior bad acts, in the determination of whether you’re guilty or innocent, it’s it’s really, really detrimental
and the prior bad acts is it The other women alleging that they did they their statute of limitations that already passed and so they were able to I don’t know if the right word is testify but something along those lines where they were stating what had happened in the past and they were using that not as evidence but as character evidence, I guess.
Well, it’s it’s actually not for character evidence at all. You can’t You can’t let’s say he had he had A through H on appellate issues. So however many that is, anybody that can count as your rage I’m I’m I’m only interested in issue a and I shouldn’t say only I’m primarily interested in issue a which is where the lower court permitted testimony from five women as as well as purported emissions from appellate civil deposition concerning allege uncharged misconduct and more than 15 years old, in some cases. So that was that was where I focused on the on the On the on the appeal, and they go through rule four four B which prohibits the evidence of a crime wrong or other act to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. So you can’t use it for that. But however powerbank evidence may be admissible for another purpose such as proving motive opportunity and debt preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accidents, accident if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice, which the judge has to wait the probative value and, and the potential prejudicial effect of this and the the the Commonwealth salt I’m reading from the opinion on page 27 to demonstrate that appellant engaged in a pattern of non consensual sexual acts with victims that were quite distinct from a typical sexual abuse pattern. So distinct in fact that they’re all recognized. recognizable as the handiwork of the same perpetrator. And that’s what they argued. And that’s what prevailed and carry the day in terms of those not victims being able to
testify. So just just showing that he has a similar pattern, I guess is that Mo, like modus operandi? That’s what
that’s one of the things and it says when ruling This is on page 28 one ruling on the admissibility of evidence under the common plan. Exceptional trial court must first examine the details and surrounding circumstances of each criminal incident to ensure that the evidence reveals criminal conduct which is distinctive. And so dear dad and uncle esta become the signature of the same perpetrator. relevant to such a finding will be the habits or patterns of action or content undertaken by the perpetrator to combat crime as well as the time place and types of victims typically chosen by the perpetrator. This is a tough standard, but they allow those to testify and that that sealed his In terms of first year he was a they deadlocked. And they were did not allow this testimony. Well, the second always when you get a second trial, the state has a better it helps the state more than it helps the defense because the state figures out what they could have done better. And they certainly figured out that you’d like for for be and getting that evidence they have would probably help them and they succeeded. I have no idea if domains guilty. I have no idea whatsoever. All I know is that for all four B makes it very difficult if they succeed in getting a proper bed active. It is very prejudicial towards yours. Right.
And I mean, I was going to bring up that any mortal human as far as you know, finances go, you certainly you know, you would exhaust your funds before the state does and Bill Cosby could ostensibly out fund the government as far as challenges go, I assume he still has many millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in his bank to to file petition after petition and challenges and all that stuff that he Can he can push back on them pretty damn hard?
Well, we don’t know that either. Typically the people when they’ve been disgraced, they’ve offered left high on the hog and he may not have millions of dollars we’ll find out. But, but I did highlight several things in the in the opinion the 94 pages but I did go through it and its entirety because this is the issue I focused on. And and it is it’s a biggie to me as far as when for for be evidences is admitted you, your, your swimming, swimming uphill after that.
Just just, you know, do it doing research live on the podcast, he was worth $400 million last year.
So while he showed us man, he should be able to have some staying power. You have an issue with thing. So do you want I
want to talk about this crazy governor in Kentucky that decided to give voting rights back to 140,000 foreign felons
and just briefly That we got to cut not we can talk he has a new governor that this is an example of for your vote counts. I think the election was decided by less than 5000 votes out of the billions cast. And, and Governor Matt Bevin who had succeeded in not alienating everybody, even his own party was defeated. And I know and I’m really, really conservative state by Democrat and the the Democratic governor has, has began restoring the voting rights of thousands of people. Now to bevans credit. He did a TED pardon to complete some sentences all the way out the door hundreds of the and he’s taken a lot of criticism for that so people can can see what happens when you use your powers of executive clemency. What an outcry he’s created by other he he pardoned out right over 100 then he commuted sentences of about 300 people.
I saw I saw a friend of the show guy Hamilton Smith, I saw him post a tweet that he registered for vote for the first time. In however many years so that’s pretty awesome.
Absolutely but so so who you vote for whether or not you vote does make a difference in terms of public policy.
Yeah, they definitely have consequence and I just I always feel that we end up regardless party I don’t care to get into that side of the discussion but I am 14 blue dammit or I’m 14 red Damn it and be damned whatever they voted for it, the other team is bad and I cannot see myself ever voting for them. Well,
we don’t say that. I don’t see that in the state to the extent that is perceiving the nation’s capital. We work quite collaboratively here with the with the other side and you it may be that way in some states but but here there’s there’s a lot of bipartisan cooperation and looking for the common good, but they’re certainly in Washington. It seems like there’s a lot of polarization
and over it WH yy, pa house ads mandatory minimums to high profile justice reform bill, this is another elections have consequences situation. I believe that the the the House of Representatives I’m sorry, the legislature there in Pennsylvania is adding a bunch of mandatory minimums to their roster of the crimes. What else is going on here,
but it’s a bipartisan reform bill, kind of like the first step act at the federal level. This is a smaller group of legislators have come together on a bipartisan basis to to do a major reform. And then it’s being hijacked at the last moment of the process by Republicans who say that whole we’ve got to keep mandatory minimums. We’ve got to keep mandatory minimums. So this is just an example again, elections have consequences. So the bill will ultimately be watered down in order to get something through and it will be like first step was watered down, but It’s better than nothing. But riddle
me this, Larry why why do certain people say mandatory minimums are not criminal justice reform especially and how it impacts people of color and people of limited economic means? Wouldn’t that semi leveled the playing field that if you know, if Harvey Weinstein with all of us hundreds of millions of dollars goes up for the same charge that some, you know, minimum wage employee goes for they both can receive at least the minimum sentence? That has
been the argument has been
Unknown Speaker 11:28
made. So doesn’t that make it more fair than less fair?
If you believe that their unique, no unique circumstances in a particular charge where the mitigation would merit that the person not receive any present time at all, if you believe everybody should go to prison. I mean, if you believe that, for example, like the federal system for five years as a minimum, I do believe for for possession of images, if you believe that, that that all images are so evil that they Barrett five years imprison, and that the age and the first time offender status and none of that stuff should matter, I suppose that would be one way of looking at it. But I thought that we believe that human beings could could be judged individually and on the merits of the strength of their arguments in terms of what they deserved as an individual, rather than having a cash register approach to just putting it into a formula and say, this is your sentence.
And then we would therefore not even the judges and just I mean, judges don’t necessarily determine the outcome. They’re more or less referees for the two parties in the in the jousting event, and then the jury determines whether it’s guilty or innocent. So we don’t even need judges. If we go that route.
We don’t wait, wait. We need to listen to the previous podcast when the judge was talking about that very thing when he said, Hey, I didn’t impose a sentence. I had no choice. So the more the more crimes we have mandatory minimums, the less discretion we have. It always tickles me because our very own people that have to give us a call They get mad when there’s a light sentence imposed. And I said, Well, I thought that that’s what you were for was individual determination. Like with the Stanford swimmer, they, they there was all this hoopla, even from our own side. Well, he should have got 40 years, nobody showed up, he should have gotten exactly what he got. Because that’s what that’s what the merits of that case. If you have every professional who was involved in it, including the law enforcement apparatus, that’s what they recommend it. The Probation Department recommended that. So so but but now, that will not be a possibility because California and active mandatory minimum switches a step backwards. So whether it’s whether it’s a red state, or whether it’s a blue state, it’s the wrong policy. So California was wrong. And the republicans in the state of Pennsylvania, they’re also wrong, I think in California was largely voter driven from the high profile backlash from my Turner. Yeah, that was a referendum to get rid of. That’s Judge burski
But also, thank you The mandatory minimums passed. So but but it may up into just through the assembly, but it was certainly voter driven. But now that there was a mandatory minimum that goes with that crime, and they nobody can ever get what, what what Turner received as a sentence again, of course,
is that the system working as far as it evolving in a forward, I totally don’t believe the statement that I’m going to make, but is that the system correcting itself that we solve this thing happen and then the voters didn’t like it? So they demanded that the legislature change it. So then legislature responds,
well, it is the system working but it wasn’t the system working the way it ought to work, because the mob rule is what carried the day rather than well reasoned, thoughtful deliberation.
Is it the legislature’s role to then push back on the mob and not do what they’re demanding?
Well, to some degree, yes. That’s why the system was staggered with editors tip or they serve longer, they’re supposed to be able to withstand the mob, because like at the federal system, they only have to face the wrath every six years. And originally, as the constitution was designed, they never had to face the voters that were selected by their states. But senators typically serve longer periods of time. The system is designed to not respond to mob rule. Well, but unfortunately, that design has largely given way because of the perpetual life cycle that something has. And yesteryear. You didn’t. You didn’t have the stories as likely to come back and haunt you this you have now the 24 hour news cycle with continuous replay of everything that someone does. Well, I think we were talking about that orphans, children’s home in Memphis back in the 20s and 30s and 40s. You know about the the woman who was supposedly helping kids and she was killing them and selling them on the black baby black market. We did cut it from the show, but yeah, we were. We did. We did cut that from the show, but and then era in the 1920s radio was just beginning. Basically your media was newspapers and published magazines that went through slowly through the US mail system. And you wouldn’t have known much about that outside of Memphis if you didn’t if you didn’t receive a national magazine. And if you if you didn’t live near Memphis, you would never have known about that horrible thing where all those dozens and I think, forgot the count. But it was a large number of kids that were that were sold in the black market and dozens more killed and buried there, although you wouldn’t have known about that. And in this day and age now with with with with the continuous lifecycle, everything that happens is recorded digitally, be able to be resurrected, and any move a politician and they prefer to be called public servants. But any any move that a step that a public service engages in a subject to constant ridicule and criticism later, they’re resurrector words and they play them back to you. They talked about a context and They vilify you with the that was possible in the 1920s. It wasn’t possible in the colonial times, it wasn’t possible to just fair recently to do this in my lifetime, and it wasn’t possible.
And I and I think of a person like you that just has this archive of knowledge. And most you know, all of us have some sort of like, hobby, where we just know an exorbitant amount of just bullshit, nothing data, but you just have all this historical knowledge about every politician that’s ever been anywhere in the United States for the last hundred years. And you pull the secretary of state from 1970 or something out and well, I remember such and such happened and like nobody else would remember that. But now all of us have the ability to type in person’s name into Google and we can hear all the dirt that goes back all of time.
And they can continuously replay the loop on on the hit pieces that they run our hit mail to Tehran, they’ll take they’ll they’ll make a great photograph, make your look as sinister as possible. Yeah, and they’ll put senator so and so voted no on such and such And it voted like for for the for the against the mandatory minimum to say for example, California lawmaker had dared to vote against that. They would be vilified in perpetuity for not being for victims. They’d be they’d be anti victim and pro criminal. And you’d have a very short live political career after that.
Definitely. Over at the post Gazette Sex Offender Registry lon pa facing life or death test at Supreme Court. This is all about Megan’s Law 123 and all of their different iterations of which one’s going to pass. There’s one paragraph that is super interesting to me that we covered in the pre show I have to find where it is where can you can you find that real quick where the the politician said that we will go back to the drawing board if they strike it down?
It was Yeah, it was it was toward the end. But yes, and I tell people to take these people at their word. This is another example of consequences. This was representative Rob Kauffman, or republican from Franklin County who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, not as a key committee, because judiciary is typically where registration of sex offenders legislation has to clear at all legislatures around the country, they have something called the Judiciary Committee and each side of the rotunda. And he has said that if the courts a hand us a decision, that guts Megan’s Law and the effectiveness of Megan’s Law, I believe the legislature as a whole will be prepared to act or reinstated in a manner that would respond to the court’s opinion. And he said, so he’s telling you straight out that even though they got it in munez, and said you can’t do it, and they reincarnated it, and this is the reincarnated version, he said, I’m going to do it again. If they got this one, so we’re going to be at a perpetual battle and I’m remember I had a person in Pennsylvania when I did a conference call after the munez decision. came out. That was just so shocked that I said that the Commonwealth will fight this. They will do everything they can to preserve registration. And they did they they tried to take it to the US Supreme Court and they were denied. And they said they will try to react to reenact another version they did. And they are telling you now this is not me saying it, so you can discount that. I’m a kook. But this is a key leader, the legislature saying this is what we’re going to do. If you don’t want this done, I would suggest the people of Pennsylvania particularly and Franklin County, don’t reelect Rob Kauffman.
That would be a fairly easy solution to that problem.
Well, it well, if if if the if the Republicans continue to have the majority that Pennsylvania’s under split rule, they have a democratic governor with Tom Wolf, and then they have overwhelming majority, so the republicans controlling both houses of the legislature, so there’s absolutely nothing both can do. Other than veto anything they wouldn’t act now, how long would both career be if he were to veto a record?
card? So here’s here’s, here’s, here’s the provision that’s going to keep the sex offenders under watch and he says, No, I’m not doing this and talk about mob rule, they’re going to go after him with pitchforks and torches.
So a he will have no choice but to sign it. And if he did veto it, his data would be overwritten because whatever miniscule number of Democrats they are, they would vote with the republicans to override him, and so will be shortly veto. But But one way you can stop this is to make sure that people who are in key positions, understand the issues and it appears that Kaufman doesn’t, so if he’s unbeatable, not although he may be winning his elections 560 60 to 65%. It may even be going on a pose. I haven’t done that level research. But if that’s the case, then the folks who live at pH need to be making sure he understands that the register tree has many flaws that he even said that he said it may not be perfect, but it’s a vital safety tool.
And can you dig into that for just a minute about, you know, doing the research behind the politician about is he vulnerable? Anything like that? Can you can you dig into that a little bit?
Well, if if the person if the person is winning, for example, overwhelmingly or if he has no opposition, he has political capital to burn. So if you were to be able to reason with him to get him to understand that the versions of sex for the registration the hell are not really the best way to go about this, they’re not going to go to no bacon slow no registration at all. Because if they did, that, the whole business would be so good that Pennsylvania would be swarming but with people coming their stuff, they had no sex or red shoe. So if you go to Kaufman, but that is your wish list. He’s gonna say down, but if he has enough political capital to burn, he, I think we’ve talked about credibility. of who has the moral authority to do something. He apparently is a law and order tough on crime person. So if he were to come in and say yes, I’m sold on a scaled down version of Megan’s Law, no one is going to question him because he has the credentials he he has both the political capital the burden if he’s sweating by a large margin, or having no opposition, and he has the credibility on the issue because paste a law enforcement apparatus. He’s exactly who you need to try to scale this back. If you bring in a liberal do gooder. They just vilified them as being soft on crime like they did Obama so you need a law and order type to give you the leverage to do to do something as creative as scaling back the registry.
Unknown Speaker 23:42
Interesting that seems a
Unknown Speaker 23:45
to me honestly that want that particular issue is not the person who would be naturally opposed to it. To me that totally makes sense that you would want the person naturally opposed to the issue to bring the issue to the table because it just It’s not a conflict of interest, I suppose you could say,
well, they they would never question their their their integrity. See, it’s easy to question a liberal do gooder like Obama who wants to back off on crime. But if you take someone who’s hard nosed like Jeff Sessions, if he were to get like the president and say, we’ve called to foreign crime, nobody would ever question sessions, because he has the credentials of having been tough on crime all of his life. He’s locked him up his entire life. It’s like Nixon opening China and 72. If If, if Humphrey had gotten elected president was running for reelection in 72, and he had made a outreach to China Humphrey ran a 68 just case for the youngsters that don’t realize that and he lost a close one to Nixon. If Humphrey had won that election, and he had made an overture to China, Nixon and the conservatives would have vilified him as saying that he was compromising national security. But will you make your life career like Nixon did ferreting out communist and being Mr. Security he had the credentials to open he had don’t mind What’s his commandment to tarnation security so so so he was able to shake hands with Joe and lie, and nobody said a thing. And brush and all those although what he was able to do, did they taught, in case also forgotten that they taught and and also the, the they ultimately the recognition of China happened under Carter, but Nixon opened the door. And so so a law enforcement type is exactly who you need to scale the registry back.
And so ultimately, the only thing that Pennsylvania could expect is that Megan’s to won’t be reinstated as the law of the land. Some revision of may Megan’s three would then be stood up, back up or stood up.
Well, I’m confused because they have so many versions, but
I know I know.
Their most recent iteration and attempt to to reinstate what they perceived as the damage done by the business decision. This was the legislature trying to salvage and according to all observers in Pennsylvania, they basically reinstated the previous law. And most of it at that was that had been declared unconstitutional. Well, they’re likely to do that again. And that that’s what I’m saying if you if you have any hope you need to reach out to the law enforcement people that their legislature and say look, we don’t want to be a perpetual litigation because if you pass another version is as bad as this. We’re going to be right back here again. Yeah. And and if you are as conservatives, as you say you are. And if you believe in fiscal responsibility, as you say you do, and you believe in sound public policy, as you claim, then let’s come up with a public policy that’s more cost efficient, and actually promotes public safety rather than keeping the state in broad that perpetual litigation. This consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars, and countless sorts a man hours, can’t say that person hours. And it says it says it’s a distraction. Because a true conservative would not want to be embroiled in perpetual litigation because they’re the guardians of the purse. Remember?
I’ve heard that I’ve heard so I’m not sure I believe that that’s actually a true position.
Well, if you look at the federal voting deficit, I think we can clearly see it stopped. Oh,
I see. I wasn’t trying. I wasn’t trying to go there. I was just gonna leave that hanging Chad out there finally ready to go. What is he talking about?
Unknown Speaker 27:26
let’s move over to an article from courthouse news. I really love this picture. Please go to the show notes and check out this article from courthouse news would be the fourth or fifth article down says Weinstein off the grid dozens of times prosecutors to court. This picture shows this guy who’s 67 years old, he’s clearly overweight. He is not in any sort of physical shape to resist the two very large humans that are manhandling him down the walkway. He’s not going anywhere. I don’t know why they have to have their paws on him in such a way that like you must come with me now. I like He’s probably just going to comply. I don’t think he’s going anywhere, man. I’ve always
raised that raised that question myself. I think it’s a part of the humiliation.
I would agree. You know, this is totally perfect. But I mean, if he were, forgive me, but you know, this is profound, but if he were some, I don’t know, let’s call him an NFL player, you know, and he’s 300 pounds, just a solid muscle and runs 100 yard dash in 10 seconds or whatever will be fast. Okay, maybe you got to keep your hands on that guy. But his ankle monitor, because he lives in some obscure kind of neighborhood, there’s no cell service where you so they they they’re talking about that has a GPS ankle monitor has been nonresponsive 56 times or some stupid number like that. And they want to have his bond raised so that they can keep a closer eye on him and make sure that he’ll show up for court. So and we have covered GPS monitoring things a good jillion times, and here’s a guy that has all the money in the world and his stuff doesn’t work either. And they’re trying to put the screws to him because his his tech glitches of a GPS monitor thing is it well, was it
judge, the judge did raceless bail? I mean, he was able to do but the judge raises bail and threatened that he could revoke his bail. And if I were Weinstein, I would disregard the advice of my attorneys who have who are probably telling him that we could save you. And I would say I’m going to live in a place for their Sonic of the at reception problems because I don’t want to be I don’t want to be remanded and that’s what they’re going to do next is they’re going to try to remand this man to custody. Oh, I forgot I’m not supposed to I’m not supposed to say that. They’re gonna they’re gonna they’re gonna have a party and live happily ever they’re not gonna try to remind him to castee.
Unknown Speaker 29:39
So we should have a party.
But but but clearly, the prosecution is gunning for rebel revocation here, and I’m saying look, I’m not supposed to say what actually think it’s gonna happen. sababa retracting that I’m saying that I misspoke and the prosecution was just gonna have a party for him.
Uh, you know, he’s 67 years old he is he’s alleged to have done a bunch of horrible things. And I think it says that he could get life in prison if he gets convicted on all five felony charges. Yeah faces life sentence if he gets convicted. And we do we still have in the United States innocent until proven guilty.
We claim we do, but I’m dubious about it, because we don’t seem to have respect that. And
I mean, I guess a guy with like, what I think his net worth is in the $60 million range. I mean, I guess he could be considered a flight risk, if that is probably fair. And that’s why you would give him some sort of large seven figure amount of bond money,
right. But that’s theoretically what the GPS monitoring is doing is keeping tabs on him. Theoretically, if he goes off grid for too long period time, they would go out and find try to find it. It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s crazy because they I’m sure they’ve confiscated his passport. they’ve entered into every system so he would have to, he would have to figure Right away, to travel undetected, and he would have to figure out a way to get out of the country. I don’t think it’s
not like his face isn’t on the cover of every newspaper. At least it has been
right. So it has been very easily recognizable, be hard for him to evade. And they would go get it wherever he went anyway.
Yeah, alright, that’s over at the New York Times three Illinois prison guards face us civil rights charges in inmates beating death. I have one question for you, Larry. This guy sustained multiple broken ribs, a punctured colon. And other serious injuries in the attack died six weeks later from Brunt blunt trauma injuries. I’m pretty sure I know where the colon is. And that’s sort of like the final area on the backdoor side of things I can’t quite come up with in my head of how you would have a punctured colon. If not one thing had been done. can only come up with one way to punch ricola as my only question in this
and I don’t know any other way either but it the feds are on the case with civil rights with with filing charges against the police officers I remember always magically become a defense already person. So even though the the guards would never believed anyone’s innocent, it looks bad, but they are all they too, are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. they’re entitled to representation to participate their defense call witnesses on their behalf, cross examine the witnesses that are called against them. And they’re entitled for that presumption to follow them through their duration of the proceedings until a jury of their peers returns the verdict of guilty by unanimous except for the state of Oregon I think by by unanimous in federal court at the unanimous so I’m not ready to presumed guilty but it certainly certainly looks awfully bad.
Yeah, and So as I recall, I’m not positive of this but the Abu Ghraib where the people were urinating on the the detainees there. I want to say as I recall, those were all pretty much junior enlisted people that were involved like it didn’t I think other people were aware of it, but they didn’t. They weren’t actually doing it. So here is the lieutenant and a sergeant and then an officer Lieutenant is kinda like the HMF IC of at least a shift. So like a personality at the top of the level of the food chain there was involved in this individual being beaten.
It’s a legend. If the allegations are true, it’s a sad commentary on our prison system. carries that there’s
Unknown Speaker 33:43
Georgia the sky right now the
the safety providers and caregivers are are doing some dubious links
and also the report so I again I’m throwing these people under the bus without having them had their day in court, whatever but the assault on Mr. Urban occurred as Lieutenant Sergeant officer moved him from his residential unit to wait, I’m sorry, I missed. Did I get it? He lost, right? Yeah, the three men assaulted him without legal justification while he was handcuffed. The guy was handcuffed. He can’t block anything. He can’t cover himself up. He can’t. And they anyway, so he posed no physical threat. I’m really bothered by these things there that these things happen.
Well, so am I in it. Apparently, the US Justice Department, the US Attorney in that jurisdiction was bothered enough to bring charges which is a rarity. And the feds as a general rule, don’t bring charges unless there’s a compelling case. So they feel like they’ve got a strong case. All right, then.
And then another one from the New York Times says landlords can be liable for racially harassed tenants. What What does this have to do with anything?
It only has to do with think, and recent episodes I was trying to address why when landlords are choosing tenants Employers are choosing Hari’s of the potential liability and having been in the landlord business for large number of long number of years, I faced this very thing where, where you have to keep an environment that’s safe for everybody. And this is an example of what happens when you allow tenants to be running the asylum. So that was already not put it in there that that you can’t you can’t allow tenants to do what they apparently was going on here.
And that would be state by state, though correct on this article comes out in New York, that landlords can be held liable. You know, let’s call New York a pretty blue state but move over to a state with a different political kind of ideology. Maybe landlords aren’t responsible.
Well, I think Federal Housing would be you may, you may end up having having issues with the feds. But But I just think that people are not liable for what other people do. That’s just that was the whole point is you can be liable, but You hire people, you have a certain duty to screen who you’re hiring and keeping a safe workplace, not just because you’re being convicted of a sexual offense that all the registry, that in and of itself doesn’t make you a danger to the workplace. But it does raise a question just as any other conviction does, about the safety of the workplace. Got it?
All right, well, then let’s move on. Look, man, this is two weeks back to back with an article from Tech dirt. And I’m just kind of amazed that we would end up with an article from a site called tech dirt. Another federal court says compelled production of fingerprints to unlock a phone does not violate the constitution. So the bottom line up front is if you have stuff on your phone that you don’t want anybody to know about. You have to use a PIN code and make it as long as possible. Don’t use a fingerprint and don’t use your face because they can totally cheat and like, you know, you can get two guys, two people to hold your face down and hold your eyes open and hold the phone up to your face and your phone unlocks and they can totally get your finger and put it on the phone and unlock your phone. So use a digit, and that would at least be more protected or by your fifth amendment protection of compelled speech.
You did it, you did a great job analyzing that, because that’s exactly where the where it appears that the case law is heading. But this is a developing area of case law. We really don’t know how this was going to fully develop, because we wouldn’t have needed to think about this just a few short years ago. And we’re dealing with with evolving technology. And it’s very reasonable to take contrary positions we’ve we’ve had decades, if not over 100 years of jurisprudence about identification, and compelled identification. It’s not it that when when they force you to get your fingerprints, that’s not testimonial, it’s just a simple identification. So that doesn’t violate any any part of the Constitution, when they force you to speak for voice analysis data. Doesn’t compel you to testify against yourself when they compel you Michael Jackson to allow his genitals to be photographed. That was not compel speech. It was a testimonial in nature, they just simply wanted to see if what was described match the description. And when they serve you with a search warrant to search your house and they find all sorts of incriminating documents, those documents that you’re not testifying against yourself, they’re simply executing the order of the court to search the premises and they’re coming up. So it is it is not unreasonable to have the position that some courts have taken on this is that opening your phone in and of itself is not testimonial.
The thing that seems so very different in this regard, is you have all of the myriad of tools that you could use to make a journal. You know, you could use a program like Evernote or whatever and you are keeping you are you are transcribing thoughts into someplace and you’re storing them in some sort of you know container and then you store that on your phone. So you always have a you know, quote unquote a book that you can write down in your diary. And you could confess all of your crimes and all of your sins in this little book and to me it feels like you should be able to protect that from everything. And you can do some really Crafty Things to make it so that those people can’t ever get into it. And I if all of your financial records all your contact information, all the conversations you have with all the people is stored there on that device and it just seems so invasive invasive that in one fell swoop they can grab that thing and have your entire at not your entire life history but your your recent handful 510 years of history, just all in one fell swoop just got it.
What about people who keep a very detailed diary journals of their life and they record their activities that are less than than flattering and Sorry, yeah, what happens to that? What about people who make videos themselves going out commit crime, should they not be able to use the video against the best not testimonial is fighting against yourself? Yeah, and you’re not being forced to testify against yourself, you’re an idiot enough to make a video of yourself committing
True, true that true that I just like there’s just so much other information in there outside of the one little focus of the the issue. It just it’s a secure, it should be a secure somehow you should be able to keep it secure. I, to me, that’s what it feels like, up to the point that there’s some kind of search warrant which I know this word this whole article goes to is getting a legit search warrant. But the police and border guards are confiscating your gear and they can just plug in a device and they can snatch all your data. And they then have all they have your data without necessarily going through the proper channels with a search warrant.
Then the Supreme Court just rule if they can’t do that anymore at the border that they have to have.
They did they did just recently and I was going to try and bring that up somewhere in here. Yes, they did just make it so that they they can at least for citizens, they can’t just arbitrarily say, Oh, hey, you’re coming back from Rome. Let’s take your device and go get all the data off of it.
So, but but yes, the key, the key component here is whether it’s testimonial and, and putting in your digits, that’s not testify. I mean, if you’re a true textualist. And that’s what so many of our audience are. I don’t know how you can say that. That would be no different than handing the dorky to the police officer who says I’ve got a war and slaps at your face, and please open the door where to use a battering ram that is not testifying as yourself by unlocking the door. I don’t see a huge difference. I wish I could say no, but I don’t. And I you know how much district textualist right.
Brian in chat says one solution has had the courts appoint a special investigator to look through the person’s phone narrowly for whatever is specified in the warrant evidence of crimes against a confidential foreman in this case, but that is expensive.
I love it. I think he should join us on the next podcast.
And a special investigator would be so this would be the quote unquote Robert Mueller. So he’s an sort of impartial just going through and then he makes a report says yes or no, these are the things that it did or did not find End of story.
Yeah, patient bait he should be your your co host with me next week.
Unknown Speaker 42:30
I you’ve just replaced me. Thank you. I appreciate it. I said they would be your co host with me.
Oh, you’ve replaced yourself. I see. Yeah. Let’s move over to an article from Pro publica. And this is why are cops around the world using this outlandish mind reading tool. Larry, have you ever heard of a mind reading tool actually working a
Unknown Speaker 42:51
polygraph? Oh, okay. So you want it you want to
claim polygraphs are legit to all right.
I didn’t say it. You said Working I didn’t say let’s yet it works, it gets people to confess. So so it doesn’t read the mind but it sure gets over talent what’s in their mind, doesn’t it? It does. It does, it totally does.
This is somehow they hand you some Kabuki questionnaire with like, missing words and stuff in and you fill it out. And then this special guy, especially trained individual looks at what you have written. And it says he noted while summarizing the day Hernandez disappeared, Joyner had not used the word I writing, for example, went home, not I went home. And somehow that is a signal of deception. This is complete Kabuki.
I am pretty well convinced that, that this if you were to do a controlled study, and have people write down their stuff, and you know, you get a control group of where people are actually going to lie and then some other group of people that don’t tell lies and he wouldn’t be able to determine anything. Whether You know, somebody that doesn’t have necessarily the highest command of the English language? Might not right.
I went home. I do believe it’s Kabuki myself. Yeah, I know you do.
I know you’re just like trolling me and trying to get me all riled up. It’s a long article and I, yeah, I mean, I totally understand where you’re coming from where you say it works. I’m really baffled by the idea that the polygraph works because you believe it works. Therefore, you will then admit to your crime, because you believe the thing works, but the thing didn’t work and if you stood your ground, you may have not had such the problems,
but they but they have the deck stacked against you. And that’s that what is that the Hobson’s choice I believe the word we’re looking for? We’re a wise choice you make you It’s like when you were when you when you didn’t think you were which and if you did say How did it go back? Oh, yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah. So, but but, but the tape got this stacked against you. If you stand your ground in the polygraph, and you’re saying I don’t know why Your devices, your deception because I’m telling you the truth, then they drop you from treatment. Yes, which forms the violation. So the petition to revoke says, participant was uncooperative, and treatment. Therefore, they were terminated to preserve a slot for someone else. And, therefore, their failure to their failure to comply with court reporter counseling and then they get revoked for that. So you if you stand your ground, you lose you get revoked, because you’re dropped from treatment. And if you lie, if you if you admit to your lie, if you were lying, if you go ahead and confess, then you get revoked for your admission. So there’s that so the deck is stacked. It’s a winless situation for people but it comes to the polygraph.
there’s a there’s a streaming service I subscribed to called curiosity stream and it is a sort of like a history channel and Discovery Channel kind of thing. But what they used to be 20 ish years ago when they actually produced programs That were educational. And they had a two part series about witches. And the first episode and there, they profiled this young woman living in the town. And she’s, I think she was a widow. And some rich dude comes into town and he notices and she, I think she’s like his, like made or something like that. And he notices that she sneaks out late at night. And he’s now convinced that she’s going to perform witchcraft, when in reality, she was going to have an affair, but in the 17 1600s, you know, Salem, witch trial kind of thing, timeframe. This kind of activity was not necessarily looked upon very favorably. So when he says, You’re going out and performing witchcraft, she goes, No, no, no, no, no, I’m not. No, I’m not and he’s like, you’re a witch and meet your witch and they start torturing the crap out of her. They put some sort of strap around her head and start tightening the screws like compressing her skull. They had some things where they were like messing with their fingers and like, terrible, terrible things. Eventually, after all this pain Interest She goes, yes, I’m a witch. And then they burned her.
Unknown Speaker 47:04
Well, it worked. It did they got her to MIT. She was a witch.
Well, I could tell you they so here, these, these tools do work.
Hey, do something more like the rest to me. This is bullshit, man. This makes me so angry. If you put this under, like, you know, get get like the Einsteins of the day and the scientists who actually do real science and get them to test these things. And they would be like, no, this is not real, but then we still use it because the police are like, oh, we’re still going to use the thing. It’s all your fault. All right, from vice calm. What happened after Chicago police cut down on busting drug possession and prostitution. This is Hey, after they cut down on it, then they probably needed some less police and they’re a little pissed off that they need less police.
Well, what what to put it into context they the police union in Chicago decided they were going to punish the citizens because they had the audacity to prosecute a convict sentence officer for Jason bed Dyck for for for killing laquan McDonald so furious that took place the verdict, they issued a veiled threat the day the day asking why their citizens Chicago were ready to pay the price the police officer stopped feeling comfortable doing their jobs. And then they they arrest by officers dropped 50% city wide the evening after the sentence and then came down almost 25% for the two weeks forward cuz say they were teaching the citizens the lesson. But the funny thing was when the police pull back, crime came down.
Unknown Speaker 48:37
Now isn’t that funny?
That is pretty amazing. So now so they all quit and then crime didn’t like skyrocket?
No, no. So slowly, the weeks following vandyke sentencing serious crime continued to decline even though the cops returned to a more active policing so far 2000 it the number of homicides which was previously one of the highest has done 8% murders have fallen to their lowest level in five years, shooters are down 9% compared to last year, police were doing last but somehow Chicago became safer. Now what I’d ask you ask you people in Chicago, when the police come to you and tell you we need that bond referendum skills, we need more officers on the street. Just because they tell you they need more officers on the street. That doesn’t necessarily make it so. And I just I chastised our mayor at a public event here when he was running in 2017. Because he said he wanted to hire four more officers. We were hovering around 850. And he said, we got to get the force back up to 1200. Where we better than IDs. And what Rubik do you measure that we need 12 or officer takes? Well, that’s how many we had the 90s last, but this wasn’t the 90s we have less crime now that we had in the 90s. And and uh, and he says, Well, that’s just what the experts So who are the experts, they’re saying that, of course, that makes a candidate very uncomfortable. And he says, Well, everybody knows that they know that Albuquerque is property. It’s been trending up and you’re trying to respond to it. So was police officers still new response to rising crime rate? I mean, is is that the only component that gets more money to try to address crime? Well, anyway, I think the I think that this shows that more police because the shock Chicago police pull back and crime went down
and not to derail what you were just saying what other what other tools are there to deal with the rising crime rate?
Well, well, you have the entire judicial system that that that but but I tend to believe that crime is a symptom of deeper social problems. There are some psychopaths out there that that probably that know about fixing but to help. But I believe that a lot of crime is economically driven by despair and poverty from people who did not, did not receive proper education, proper nurturing, and are not prepared to compete in a modern economy and they see the $7 and 25 cents an hour is being less attractive than them, sustaining themselves on something that pays better, and it does pay better. There’s a lot of criminality that pays better than $7 and 25 cents an hour.
Now, I’m sure not over a grocery store or convenience store probably pays better.
And so I believe that that that, in addition to, to applying for two officers that maybe would hire 100 officers that maybe you would develop more early intervention programs to get teams off the streets, more employment training programs for teenagers, more supportive work programs for teenagers to make sure that people that are the formative years are getting the mentoring that they need. And hopefully they don’t resort to a life of pride. We don’t want people to choose that choose that life because it’s a very expensive life for, for the taxpayers to support. So it’s I have something that liberal do good idealism lifted me that I think that we can, that we can actually spend more money on prevention. And prevention doesn’t just mean heart more often. A squat that arrest people prevention means diverting people from a path of criminality towards a path of productivity and success.
I think that sounds pretty amazing. Similar article over at the appeal, police play the victim when voters choose reform. I think this is sort of related to like the Larry crasner so the world where they’re going to like prosecute less crimes and whatnot and the police are not really happy about having fewer, like fewer laws on the books that they have to prosecute thus possibly like reducing their numbers.
Yes, that is going on here. That’s what’s going on here. A police gets get the get scared when when when when you go, would you go this direction? And I scared they scare the voters and it works.
And don’t we? I mean, like, don’t we want to live in a world where we actually like don’t need police and if we don’t need them, like we live in a society that is, you know, to some degree, some measure that it’s safe that we don’t have to have police running Think of Mayberry where you just have Sheriff Andy and and Barney whatever with his bullet in his pocket.
Unknown Speaker 53:06
That is ideal but we
that’s liberal thinking Andy No, no that’s liberal thinking.
Hang on, hang on. I got something my bad i got i just got slapped on the wrist.
So but in New York State for labor criminal justice I’m reading from the article reforms are set to go into effect on January 1 familia course of concern has piped up according to New York Times editorial board police commissioner James O’Neill wrote in an op ed and made that the law would, quote have a significant negative impact on public safety and success rate coming police commissioner for my Shay Express several of you know, the police unions and prosecutors across the state have issued ominous warning. The Oneida city police Benevolent Association wrote in a Facebook post think this is wrong in saying that tell your politicians that this needs to be repealed, ASAP. So this is what you’re up against when you when you when you champion reform the pole,
the title of that group man, the Oneida city police Benevolent Association really well that’s hysterical.
There’s a lot of police officer benevolence Association so that’s that’s not unique to Really? Oh yeah, yeah,
I’ve never I’ve never heard of it. I don’t really consider that the police. I mean, maybe the majority of them are benevolent, but we don’t really cover the benevolence on this on the show, you know, like the officers that beat the
crap out of that dude and ruptured his colon somehow. So uh, but Attorney General, US Attorney General bar has, has has, has cut down against a lot of the reforms that are that are being done. So it’s, it’s a scare tactic, and it works.
I read somewhere recently that there are 13 Larry crasner is in the country. So like super progressive, like reducing the prosecution load and all that stuff and they are getting the crack. beat out of them, you know, publicly and politically for their stances.
And then crisis case they had the Pennsylvania assembly pass and bestowed the prosecutorial powers that he was decided he did not want to exercise to give those powers to the state. So those crimes can still be prosecuted. And I was talking to a group of Pennsylvanians last couple nights ago about how to legislatively be more successful. And I said, you know, this is this is the people who claim they believe at local control, but you let you let locals do something that they disagree with and see how quick they they zap that local control right away from them. Clearly,
yeah, I’m like, yeah, that’s those seem to be a little bit of a conflict of position there. This is always the funny URL. To me. It’s the CC Resource Center collateral consequences Resource Center, model law proposes automatic expungement of non conviction records. Can you give me an example or two of what a non conviction record would be.
Other be there be anything from the jury returning a not guilty verdict to a prosecutor deciding that the the evidence had had fallen apart if a witness dies, that’s the key to the case. That could be that could be a prosecutor could follow notice of the link proceed gay, but they’re not gonna move forward. It could be a motion to dismiss for any number of reasons like failure to comply with discovery failure to meet the time deadlines for witnesses are for a day you know, you could the case could fall apart because of suppression of of motion to suppress a confession if that was key to the case. That could render the case really not very strong beyond that. So you can have any number of things that would result in an inada a conviction, or you could have an arrest were an adult parent died, but was never saw. You could have were The low level of the police officer in some states, all it takes is a police affidavit of probable cause. And at a low level magistrate judge, like in South Carolina last year award, when it makes it to the dais office, they could just decide there’s just not enough here. And the case doesn’t go forward. But that person is stuck with an arrest record. And so so that there’s there’s a considerable recognition Finally, that arrest records are so detrimental, that we need to make arrest records that result in a conviction, invisible at some point,
should an employer should a landlord not have access to know that you were arrested. I mean, shouldn’t they have the ability to see some sort of, you know, to get a picture of what your history is like?
Well, when I was a landlord, I would have said yes. And now I’m not so sure that I would be able to say yes, because a I’d like to think I was just a tad more sophisticated than the average landlord. And I would like to think that I was a little bit more objective than average landlord. And I think that laws, the type of charger person could have been arrested for. The title could be so scary that even if it’s a long number of years ago, I think it could be very intimidating to a person. And I think that they could rather be rather be safe than sorry. They could say, Nope, we’re not going to have your kind around here. So I think in hindsight, where I probably would have said, Yes, the landlord should have access. I think at this point, I would say, No, the landlord should not have access to arrest records that did not result in a conviction. Now, the law enforcement apparatus would argue just the opposite. They would say that there’s all these hoops and stuff where criminals have manipulated the system. They’ve gone out and killed off witnesses that would have testified against them. And they’ve blackmailed people, and they’ve caused the cases to not move forward, and they’re as guilty as soon as they know it. And that’s why we don’t want those type of arrest expunged. That’s what they would say. And it
still comes back down to we the people get to elect the sheriff get to elect the the lawmakers of what You know what these the results of these things are?
When it comes down to even a greater picture the problem that as far as I can see is we all acknowledge that that arrest records and criminal convictions Sunday arrest records diminish a person’s earning capacity dramatically for over the course of a lifetime. I guess it comes down to what you have your Paul out when you reach the age where you need to have your Paul out into the to the public Croft? Do you want people earning $7 an hour? Or do you want people earning $75,000 a year? Which do you think would allow your pocket grabbable
and I think I should be thrown under the bus as soon as possible. So I can just round my whole way through the whole you know, and that way I can I can just money grab the whole time.
Well, well, but see, I don’t think very many people look at like that. They look at it well, I paid into the system, so therefore, I’ll get mad when the time comes. But the problem is, what you don’t get is what the people are paying at that time. And if you don’t allow those people to earn a thing so they can do some paying this will be less for you get and and that’s that’s what I’m what I’m the point I try to make with lawmakers all the time every time we settle someone was a criminal record we diminish their ability to be productive and to pay for our future. You need to think about that every time you ruin a life is it really worth it for the collective good of society? When you create a Craig’s room ad and you badger someone who has no intention of meeting a minor and you finally convinced them to complete a make believe minor and then you settle that person with a sex felony? Has that really been to the good of society that you wasted that kind of money and you destroyed the ability of that person to be productive? Because you’re Paul is going to be out at some point. And the more people that are putting my name is that plate the more money that can go into your pop.
Shouldn’t they have thought about that before they went off to try and committed grind?
Well, well, I just illustration I made made the person was trying commit a crime but even if they were trying to commit a crime, I’m getting to the point if your personal interest not that criminal, I’m not worried about them. I’m worried about my Paul, what I can get in it. And if I have everybody working for what they earn in Uganda, there’s not going to be much to put it by Paul. And that’s what I don’t understand what people can’t see.
So this is really this is you being selfish that you want as much money coming to you because you’re you’re approaching?
I want I want people earning the maximum of their ability to earn money.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:33
This is all about you, isn’t it?
It’s all about the collective good of society which Americans are have a difficult time contemplating, but we don’t need people our minimum wage, we need people earning the very best that their talent will take them. And we’ve got people listen to this podcast who are dramatically underemployed because of what they have been convicted up, and of all people you should read Light to this. So
that actually gives me a decent opening one of our Patreon supporters, he, I, I’m pretty sure he told you and I don’t know if I shared it with the podcast, but he had received like a one day contracting job. He has some, some computer training to, you know, help set of computers and troubleshoot them and stuff like that. And he goes and gets hired to do a one day job installing some computers. I’m pretty sure I have the details, right, but maybe they’re roughly wrong. And they reported back he did an amazing job. He was on time he presented Well, all that stuff. Then the background check comes back. He will no longer ever be working for this company again, and they are kind of infuriated that they sent this individual on jobs because of his background check. But here he is. He was earning I think like 16 bucks an hour which is you know, that’s over. That’s double more than double minimum wage. He could be doing decent work, but because of his background check he he will no longer be doing that work.
And it says Is it in our collective interest as a society to have people earning nothing or very miniscule wages who have the capacity to be much greater contributors is that in our best interest? And I think the answer is currently it’s not.
Yeah, I wouldn’t I wouldn’t think so. And but so then should the people be sitting there saying, Oh my God, this individual scary and makes me feel Oogie I just like I always end up well, do you want him to die? So how is he supposed to support himself? Oh, okay. So it’s okay that he lives home with his parents. His parents are saddled with trying to support him. He can’t do anything. He’s basically on house arrest. Is that also okay? Oh, he’s not in my backyard. So it’s all okay. As long as I don’t have to see it. It’s kind of a homeless problem. In a way
he wouldn’t feel people wouldn’t feel lucky if they didn’t know about it. If we didn’t broadcast everybody’s stakes to the to the to the world. No one would even know that one will feel it because they would not know.
Yeah, I’m just trying to play The do them believe that after a certain number of years that the stuff should go away? Should it be as soon as you’re done with your sentence, you know, your paper and whatnot, should that be when it goes away?
Well, this argument was about this. This argument was about about about non core, there’s no conviction. So we’re going to expand
that. Sorry. I’m sorry. There’s a whole rabbit trail.
Yeah. So if there has been a conviction, at some point, yes, the record should go away. I don’t know what the magic number is. It may vary from offense to offense. But But yes, we are forgiving people are so we say we are. Yeah, we’re about second chances are so we say we are. So why do you want to continue to punish person after you punish them and they’ve paid their debt? Why don’t you let go of it and do what you say you believe in and put bygones behind it. Let that person be reborn citizen and let them start from scratch. If they screw up again, we’ll lock them up again.
Alright, well since I took us on a massive detour, let’s move on because we got to knock these things out to get to our feature segment and our listener questions. Prosecutors can only past wrongs if only the sister let’s system lets them and this is from the appeal says most prosecutors are trying to root out wrongful convictions or more prosecutors I’m sorry, more prosecutors are trying to root out wrongful convictions and restore trust in the legal system. But they’re meeting opposition on all sides. Why would this? Why would there be opposition on all sides of them rooting out wrongful prosecutions?
Well, because the system has many, many barriers built down to preserve convictions, because the thought is that otherwise people who are sort of in present time they would perpetually litigate. So for example, the anti terrorism effect the death penalty act that was passed at 90 can’t keep the Australian 9496 it was passed under newt gingrich’s regime and signed by Bill clamp it that took away a lot of tools to challenge adults who had been convicted of state court ahead exhausted all their state remedies in terms of going into federal court. Well, the states have also done a lot of tightening up on terms of their state post conviction proceedings, in terms of what type of claims are cognizable post conviction. And they really, really limit the timeline. So when you can file things, and oftentimes, a wrongful conviction is beyond the window of time where they’re permitted to gain really, if it’s a structural defect in the system. And this is where judges have to either legislate from the bench and say, Well, I’m going to ignore the law even though the person had 24 months or whatever the case may be, to bring their their their their allegation or, or they have to say, Well, I’m doing about the law. It’s like the anti terrorism effective death penalty. I think you effectively have one year from denial by the highest tribunal in your state of your claims. If you don’t break the claim within one year, and you have to exhaust you can’t Just go directly from from your conviction to federal habeas you have to exhaust by court or at least attempting review at your state’s highest court. If they deny review, then that sufficient you’ve exhausted, but that you have 12 months from that point to bring a federal claim. And then you have they have they have all these differential standards where you have to defer to the state court decision, unless it’s contrary to US Supreme Court press, not a court of appeals, not a district court, but US Supreme Court press it. So you have all these hoops that you can’t jump through. So judges are getting caught in the crosshairs of situations where they’d like to be able to great relief, but they’re not able to, it’s like the judge last week to said, Don’t buy me. I didn’t put this sentence on you. But the judges if if they’re not allowed to do it. Do you want the judge to go rogue? Is that what you’re wanting? Right. Or do you want there
was another paragraph in there that says in Philadelphia president’s office not only exonerated 10 wrongfully convicted people in less than two years, but he’s also announced his intent to form a law landmark sentence review program that will recommend reductions in draconian prison sentences. When the public good is served by earlier release. nearly two dozen other prosecutors have now expressed interest in creating similar programs. This guy is contagious. He’s infectious. And we need to root this out at the source.
I think, I think but if you read a little bit further, they they they talk about prosecutors responsibility to and the US Supreme Court said in 1922 and Bailey vs. Commonwealth prosecutors to protect the innocent as well as the prosecutor guilty. Well, I think I price
I thought that was the intent. Yes. So
But prosecutors don’t see it that way. Go out there, run for office and tell you what to do. If you vote for me, I will make sure that I protect the accused as Kobe by priority to make sure that we do our best to protect the rights to dq stop how that works out for you.
I don’t think that is nowhere anywhere near the mindset of what the American people think our criminal justice system is. That right there in a nutshell, is a significant challenge. So that’s 100 years old, just shy of, and the job of the prosecutor is to protect the innocent, as well as prosecute the guilty. And I mean, and that literally does tie over, I was trying to figure out how we’re going to segue over it says, but from the crime report, can we learn from prosecutor misconduct, prosecutor makes misconduct is withholding evidence, and just just willfully knowing that this person is, at a minimum, not as guilty, as we say, or as we, you know, people might think, to all the way to the point where they’re not guilty at all. But they still they’re trying to notch their belt and put a conviction out there. Like, there’s so much injustice in that.
And, and we really are, we have designed a system that holds prosecutors accountable. I predict within 20 years if the trends continue that We will, we will have the machinery in place. But we’ve always assumed that prosecutors operate from the utmost of moral morality and they would never do anything like that. And we’re just now beginning to see below the surface as these exonerations become more and more common. And we find out that they were that that that withheld evidence, manipulate evidence and just outright fraudulent evidence. I think that one of the articles we had tonight said the paid someone $4,000 for testimony. Was that in the previous article? Yeah, I believe it was. Yes, I remember. Yes. So So yeah. But what we just haven’t had the machinery in place to deal with because we assume that people that got these jobs had, like ashtray that they had the utmost of integrity. And, and we’re learning now that we were wrong. And I want
to give Ashley all of the the, you know, the what’s the word I’m looking for? benefit of the doubt that that she did go in with all the intent, but then there are potential Like, I mean, if your boss tells you go prosecute this case, what are you supposed to do say fyp and not prosecuted, even though your boss tells you to?
That would be an extreme remedy. There’d be other things you could do short of fyp that that you could, you could that you could do to wreck the case. But fyp would be a last resort that you could do. And a lot of what I don’t
know I mean, does then she like so her her her job performance then suffers and she gets perhaps fired or not getting a promotion, because she knows that she’s prosecuting an innocent person, but she has to do it. So she does a poor job at prosecuting. That’s one option that that’s one option that
Yeah, sometimes you you can go into judicial chambers and what the other side and have a conference with the judge and the judge can offer suggestions. What what what might would work in terms of if it’s the case, it’s not very good, what type of motion if I can file you could, there’s a number of things you can do. You can miss some deadlines by accident. In the case can get dismissed but if my pizza last resort Did you said my ethics won’t allow me to do this? And what I’m always perplexed about is in this day of full employment where people are in short supply if you did lose your job would that be the end of all life as we know it? If you’re a capable person would you be confident that someone else would want you with your with your integrity is true? Are we a nation the word integrity has no value?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:29
You guys gotta suck up to the man that’s that’s what that ultimately means.
But most people that have a matter of a thing in their lives have been fired many times several times. I don’t know about many people been fired more than once. Rush Limbaugh got fired. Yes, I’ve been fired, everybody’s been fired. It is generally the end of all life as we know it.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:52
generally not you get a lot of stuff and your feelings hurt for a little while.
While it could be very detrimental, if you’re if you’re able to 25 year retirement tracker and you’re you’re 2122 23. It would be very frustrating. But if you believe, like you say you do about having to answer in the afterlife for your for your account for what you’ve done. I would think that that would play into your analysis also about saying, well, I did the right thing. Even faced with a tough choice. I did the right thing.
Do you think that the Miranda warning for suspects is important?
No, no, they shouldn’t even bother with that.
I think Kansas City should end written miranda warnings for suspects. This is from the Associated Press. The Miranda warning is like you have the right to remain silent. all that garbage, right?
Yes, well, they’re not going to end it’s more than just the written the written ones.
So as I like I’ve seen on TV like they will, they will sort of tell it to you, but they will also hand it to you for you to be able to read it.
And sometimes have you signed it that you understand it, but is
this also that’s like signing a sentence, you know, hey, I’m agreeing to to what’s the word take out, take a plea deal. Like that’s not under duress. You got like the lights flashing in your hand handcuffs and says, Are you agreeing that you understand your Miranda like, you don’t have to talk to us. And then they’re going to say, Hey, we would like to answer to some questions like, I guess I’ll answer your questions so that I can go home. Oh, so you’re waving your Miranda rights? Yeah, that what I’m getting at here is that
you’re getting towards Yeah. It’s so many people. It’s so few people I should say so many people just disregard the miranda warnings and talk. It’s the rare this the rare person who who invokes Miranda says I’m not going to talk to you people. It’s unfortunate but their their skill exceeds the willpower of the average person to say no, I’m not going to talk. Heaven. I
heard that some of the SCOTUS judges think that this is some Kabuki stuff here like this is this is not a constitutional thing.
Is the I heard that the conservatives on the court have been weakening Miranda for a long time. And so now that you have to continuously invoke it, they can come back later. After a period of time, we’re not clear on what period of time they can come back in. So you have to speak in order to invoke your Miranda rights. So judge a way that was Kagan said it that it turns Miranda on its head, because in order to assert it, you have to continue to speak. So they asked you this afternoon, do you want to speak and then they come back two days from now say, do you want to speak you have to you have to go through the stress of asserting it all over again?
I mean, and nodding your head. It doesn’t count.
I don’t know. I guess I’m the police.
Didn’t we weren’t going to sit on that for very long but that’s I, you, you you have a constitutionally protected right to an attorney. Is
that correct? Or do I have that wrong? If you’re facing a loss of liberty of a certain period of remember, it’s three or six months but yes, you do have the right to an attorney and a criminal proceedings. gonna result in loss of liberty.
Right? So you so they’re just telling you what your constitutionally protected rights are. Why would the justices be pushing against that coming because we don’t really have civics training in school to teach you that this is something that you can assert
well, that it interferes with police investigations are simple.
Okay, so we’re just trying to get it convictions be damned that the police have hurdles to jump through.
That’s too inconvenient. The whole the whole thing. The whole thing is to make the system run more efficiently turn out convictions.
I see. And we’re all about trying to reduce some prison population because it’s really effing expensive to have a bunch of people in prison too.
Right? Well, that’s after that’s an afterthought that, that that we’ve come to realize recently, but we don’t put two and two together very well in this country. We don’t look give you give me an example about just less than 10 years ago, a lawmaker Arkansas said that she wanted to pass and she succeeded. passing a bill requiring all level three offenders to be on GPS monitoring. And it would only apply to people who got convicted of a level three offense, it was not going to be ex post facto. So she said, don’t matter what it costs, it’s gonna be a long time before anybody actually is subject to it. And that’ll be for a later date. It’s hard to do the fiscal analysis because you have to do the input and figure out how many people are going to be convicted going forward, how long they’ll be in prison, when they’ll start to come out. How much will GPS cost that type? How many will come out in year one, year two, year three? What was it keep me keep it with me. And we don’t think about stuff like that. Yeah, that’s too complicated.
From from the Times Union, a former Georgia Jones gets prison for trying to entice a teen. Like what is so this is from just a couple days ago. This is from the 12th so this is two days ago, former judge was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years in prison for having a sexual online relationship with who he believes was a 14 year old girl and trying to entice her into sexual acts. Does this mean It was not actually a 14 year old girl.
I suppose so but I think that’s an excessively long sentence for that for that offense. But Georgia
talking naughty with what he believed as a 14 year old
you people apparently they traded he saw the pictures as well but it’s an awfully long sentence for that
he’s also a 59 years old so he’s not getting out till he’s like 74 years old if I did my math and don’t ever do math while you’re recording a podcast off like that’s updating like your age range almost.
And then he’s not even anywhere close. He’s got another he’s got another hundred years to go.
That’s it was one that we let the lawmakers set and set this up.
The key thing is it says he was the general counsel representing the Department of of family and children services, the Newton of Walden counties, which is just east of Atlanta. Oh, he saw he he was he was He was in an interesting position. Boy.
Oh, so it says unknown to Jeffrey. He was actually chatting with the girl’s father. Who was never I don’t even want to read the rest of that sentence. It’s the third paragraph down. Do you want to read the rest
Unknown Speaker 1:19:13
He was actually chatting with the girl’s father.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:17
Do you see that? Pretty pretty disgusting.
Yeah, I don’t want to read the rest of that sentence. All right, then. We should then we should then move on to the Marshall project.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:26
you’re gonna have what Go ahead.
Yeah, hey, hey, hey, hey got a hard sentence regardless.
That they the next article comes from the Marshall project, and it is can we fix mass incarceration without including violent offenders? Larry your answer is we cannot. All right, then we should move on. We should be like a 32nd rundown please.
We can bend the trajectory down what what what not including violent offenders but this is back to the to We the People The people are not ready, in most instances, to start letting any leniency be shown on those who have been convicted of. It’s labeled a violent offense regardless whether there’s any violence and defense or not. So with with the overbroad definition of violent offenders, and then they’ll automatically exclude sex offenders. I think in pre show banter, I said, you, you’re exceeding probably 50% of the offender population, if you do the sex offenders and anything that’s remotely is labeled violence, domestic violence would be example. I mean, sometimes domestic violence, there’s not that much violence, anytime you unplug the telephone and kill their access and, and put your foot the doorway, so they can’t leave. That’s not good behavior. But that’s not necessarily violent either. But it all falls under the gambit of domestic violence. And if so, if we don’t do that, it’s like trying to balance the budget by putting 60 70% of it off limits and then trying to balance the budget on the 25 30% of discretionary spending. We can bend them, we can bend the jakhary down. But if we’re going to not be the mass incarceration nation, we’re going to have to put all offenders on the table for discussion. And not just the people who have been convicted of minor nine violet and possession of drug offenses, because those are going to go through the system pretty fast. And we’re still going to have an over incarceration problem.
Interesting. Almost done here. A police officer shot a fleeing teen. It was a second on duty killing in less than a year. This is from the Washington Post. This is from California, if I’m not mistaken. And but this time, it’s over 15 year old Carmen Spencer Mendez, who was fleeing this officer and the body cam footage shows that he kind of mow them down a little bit. I was having a conversation with a friend this afternoon. And I mean, if you’re like Trying to gain entry into a military base or some sort of secure facility like that. Perhaps the police those those enforcement agencies, they would have the authority to shoot on on site. And maybe if there’s like a nationwide manhunt that we see in like TV movies where the plane crashes and there’s now 100 felons out running around, perhaps then you like issue a blanket order that you can shoot on contact. But if someone is just like been pulled over for and this is a 15 year old kid, so this is not even like it’s not like he was in a car maybe maybe he was in a car but you know, he’s not. Anyway, so maybe he’s gets like he was fighting maybe had some drug possession maybe like and he runs away and you’re going to shoot him? Doesn’t seem like that’s a justified shooting.
Well, often, oftentimes what appears to be on justified as deemed justified by the system may remember that one calling backwards and the Vegas hotel. What is footage we we did earlier on in the podcast. Remember that one Well, yes, it was hard to argue with a guy with just a little skimpy pair of panties on. Yeah, we had on his boxers that they pose any threat when it was clear he had no weapons whatsoever. So even if he was pulling up his panties, he still wasn’t able to do it like they are. He I mean, that was a disgusting episode of police overreach. He was found not culpable officer acted rationally. And so so yes, this this is this is probably going to be what are they find it justified.
And this is didn’t California just Institute some sort of law and I want to say that the way the law is worded, it’s kind of backwards in the way the way that it appears to me but they have created some sort of higher standard that the police have to follow before they can they
they did a force to they did and I’m not able to articulate that policy. But yes, they are trying to deal with it within so it’s raining and the police overreach for grabbing for for lethal force.
And Brian was just asking me about this in chat and said This death took place in too late 2018. And the one prior to that was also in late 2017. So that’s why this one didn’t necessarily apply to using that policy. I was I was kind of curious about that, too. So thank you for asking that. And then that got that cleared up. From over the Chicago Tribune, wayside cross child sex offender residents receive new notice citing proximity to over our park. These are some people that are getting notices they live in a ministry, and they were given a letters that they have to leave within 30 days because there’s a park that has been stood up I think it says about 500 feet away if I’m not mistaken. And do you know if this is like one of those things like a pocket park that just sort of, Hey, we want these people out. So we’re going to put a park up and we’ll have to get them to vacate?
I’m not sure on that. But what I do know is that our favorite attorneys Adele Nicholas and Mark Weinberger on it and they are going to if you haven’t already, they’re going to file for an injunction and hopefully preserve the status quo but But this is this is just over the top
is 30 days, is that kind of quick for them to try and get an injunction?
Well, they did it less than that Tennessee with when they were going to split up the families. So yes, it is it is a short time frame but but they’re good and not and I think they’ll pull it off because they’ve litigated this issue before and they decided not to enforce it and then they’re right back at it again because city council said we’re not going to put up with this nonsense. Okay,
so it’s 19 Pete 19 residents that were scheduled to receive the letters on Friday morning at 730 tell me what the justification is can you can you do me a favor and argue the other side for a minute and just help me understand their position?
But it’s hard to argue something as insane as that. I generally can. I hear crickets man I generally can’t but but because this goes against everything about morality, you know, people people that would would deprive someone of housing and deliberately when they already they’re already on the fringes. Society.
Yeah, I mean, they’re living in like a I don’t wanna call the halfway house but they’re living in a, you know, in a Christian home that probably is just like giving them some sort of temporary ish housing until they can get themselves stood up on their own. I’m assuming that’s what this is.
Yeah. I wish I could explain, but I can’t but but the the system is at work, the lawyers are on it. And I think that they will probably have a good chance like to assess this team is very good.
Okay. And this is essentially like a NIMBY kind of thing. Not in my backyard. We just don’t want those people living here. I don’t care where they live, but not here.
That’s right. Yeah. We can’t have that. Thanks for being
thanks for being compassionate Americans. Hey. And our final final article is from the center Daily News and I should say century because it says CNT sorry, this is Nebraska inmates seeks to overturn prisons pornography ban. This guy is a life sentence and he wants to have the naughty books in prison. And he says that it is discriminatory because and I like his thinking here so if a if a gay guy has a muscle magazine and you’ve got men wearing very very skimpy skimpy tights on he could be having some level of arousal by looking at the bodybuilder dudes and he wants some nudie magazines in
mind you have to admit that that’s a creative argument. You have to admit that don’t you?
I think that that seems like a legit argument to me.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:27
If you what is they still published Maxim? Yes, as
Unknown Speaker 1:27:32
far as well I don’t know. Let’s I guess I can look this up
anyway. So many magazines on the system. So many magazines have gone by the wayside. But
Unknown Speaker 1:27:38
yeah, but it’s it’s still a thing. But but that would be
I mean, like, like all the Men’s Fitness magazines where they were they were they go shirtless and have a little tight spandex shorts and stuff. Oh, I don’t see. I don’t see anything illogical about that is looking as a maximum or they’re wearing the beat or like the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. They still publish that.
They still Do but you will have a hard time getting that one in prison they will they will at least here they will
is what I’m saying so so but but I doubt they’re denying events fitness events health and those type of magazines so I but you have to give it give him credit he did come up with a novel argument
i like it i personally I just just just society then do these men and other and women do they end up devolving down to the lowest forms of society by having access to the nudie max that’s a guess that’s a way to word all that the man’s never you know, if he has a license, he is ostensibly never going to be with a woman again. So why not let the guy fantasize all he wants and take care of business?
Well, I think it’s in our evolving standards of decent indecency. That I mean, as far as back 2030 years ago, I don’t think most prison administrators even gave a second thought to having having stimuli around like this. I mean, they didn’t let hustler and some of the some of the more hardcore magazines but but but just regular ordinary penthouse Playboy’s put specially, there was no thought about it but there has been a change in our attitudes because it is now if you have, for example, when you have a fully integrated correctional staff like we do and presence and you have a centerfold poster and the the officer who happens to be looking at that feels that that’s degrading ameliorating what I what I’m doing my job and I have to look at that disgusting nudity on your wall. And I’m here trying to do a job so so you got a lot of pushback from the staff that they don’t want that and and then I think that that the that the the prison administrators have become less committed to protecting people’s rights to read and see things because clearly in prison, you don’t have the right to, to read and see everything that they they do have a level of control, and they’ve just pushed the limits to see how far they can take So, this this is some pushback to see where the limits are. We’ll find out. We’ll be talking about this on a future episode. Is this case plays out? Yeah, definitely. My prediction is it will be dismissed. And so dude will not be able to get his magazine. He probably will not be the court certainly don’t find anything very shocking these days and they’re very unsympathetic to prisoners. The prisoners negation Reform Act made it much more difficult to litigate against prisons, and I just, I just don’t see it this big. I love wrong, though, always like being wrong on stuff, but I predicted he won’t get that much traction on this. Certainly.
All right then. So let’s have a little discussion about people that are just on the registry. So you’ve done your sentence, you’re off of paper and you just have to go visit your your local sheriff or whatever that term is for your local jurisdiction every year or whatever interval that is, versus being under some kind of supervision, whether that’s parole or probation and your handlers come visit. You Every now and then and you have So anyway, so before I try and I don’t want to spill the beans too soon. So let’s have a discussion about what the differences in those two situations.
Well, as Mr. Reagan said, Well remember that every answer was well, well, there is there is there is a dramatic difference. Now, before I get any hate mail, the registry is not i’m not saying the registry doesn’t have many debilitating, punitive aspects of it. But supervision is far different than mere registry. And we can start going into some of the differences but it’s not the same.
And me personally I can only speak from the position of Georgia and being you know, having my handlers come out because I’m I’m still on paper for for a good number of years to remit to remain. But for me, they come out and visit me a couple times a month. And I have a curfew that I have to abide by when I do go out of state I have to get permission to do so. offhand. Those are the specific things that impact my life directly. And that’s not the same situation for all counties. I know that some friends of mine that live up in the northeast side of the state, they don’t have a curfew, some people that are like right in the Atlantic proper area. They don’t have curfews, but maybe it would be harder for them to travel depending on what their their handlers, you know what their caseload is.
So well, that that’s that’s a good beginning of the of the differences. When you’re on supervision. Here with the within a zone of revocation of that supervision when you’re registering your you’re not within a zone of revocation, you’re within a zone of being charged with a new crime, a failure to comply. But when you’re on supervision, that supervision can be revoked. So the revocation standards are less than the proof that it takes to convict you of new crop of failure to comply with the registration. So that’s difference number one, it takes proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict the person of, of violation of terms of the registry. So you’ve got a much higher standard of proof required, when you’re merely on registration. They cannot I know they do it but they cannot lawfully come into your home and do a search and most places around the country, you waive your your right to privacy and to have your you consent to either a very low level standard of search or just upon demand of sorts of your person, your your vehicle, or, or even your your league, your electronic apparatus is registering does not carry that, that requirement. You do not have to consent to any searches of your person, your place, your vehicle, or your electronic devices. Now I’m going to start getting hate mail now because people gonna say well, I have to as a condition of registering, I have to give my email address and have to give my screen names. And I think even in some cases, they actually have to give their password. So I’m hoping those have been challenged or the process or but, but those are the those are the the rarity, not the norm. When you’re on probation, they can impose conditions upon you to get counseling. So the probation officer can give you a curfew, the registry officer cannot. The probation officer can give you a condition to take a urine test, the registry officer cannot. The probation officer can require you’d have a travel permit. The registry officer cannot require you to have a travel permit, but in some cases, they can require you to give advance notice. But it’s not to say mellish you live in Alabama, there’s always outlier exception of Alabama where you have to get a permit to leave. I think it’s even the county but certainly the state of Alabama but I think it’s even the county, the Jeff delays so Alabama was the outlier and their registries on appeal now. 11th circuit, but you can’t you can’t be compelled when you’re on the registry. As a general rule, they cannot prohibit you from having relationships. Again, there are exceptions to so you had the law Alabama has the law, Tennessee is an injunctive status now that they can’t prohibit you from having minors living with you. But as a general rule, there are a lot of differences between registration and supervision. But what people what what constitutes people is because registration has become, if you look back probation 20 years ago, how Lex probation was just a couple of decades ago, if someone had a conviction 20 years ago, and they had they been off paper for a very long time. And as the registry has totally encroached, they find the registry to impose more conditions on them than they had on supervision. They might have been on supervision where they mailed in a monthly report once a month. And they only saw the probation officer if the probation officer had a deed to see them. And they say, well, hell already had the bellend report once a month. And as long as I provided proof I was working. I only went to see him once a quarter in person. And now I have to say, I have to go see the registry office through as often or more often that I saw my PL back 20 years ago. That is correct. But that still doesn’t make the registry the same as probation. Because the registry can’t revoke you. They can prosecute you, but they can’t revoke you and bring up
another example of and I know it’s not really the case anymore, because it’s been challenged in one but packing him where they said that you couldn’t be on social media. And these this is even after post sense and I know the situation is different now but that’s what it was just a handful of years ago.
That is That is correct. And the cell there there. There are a lot of differences. I’m not defending the supervision system. terms in terms of what they’re requiring of people. I’m not defending the registry systems, in terms of what they require people, they’re both over the top, they’re both way over the top. But anybody who says that, that registration is the same as supervision, it’s just flat out not true. It’s just flat out. Not true. But But registration is very punitive. In many states, and I’d say even the majority of states it’s very, very debilitating.
An example of something that someone under supervision may have to do is to keep a driving log, all the places that they you know, to and from, and keep the mileage to make sure that you didn’t go visit any places where children are known to congregate while you are moving about. Another one, excuse me would be that you couldn’t go to places where children are known to congregate as well, like you like which could be frickin Walmart. Not to say like the obvious example would be like McDonald’s has a has a playground in it. You know, Think that makes sense to maybe avoid those places as much as possible.
But you can’t really avoid Walmart when you could. But just to everything on Amazon. Oh,
you don’t allow the internet, right? Yeah,
yeah, of course. Of course. Of course. Yeah. How are you supposed to? How are you supposed to function in that word? And, Larry, I always wonder about that one. And I don’t want to go too far down that rabbit trail. But there’s so much TV slash entertainment stuff that is only at like, is available through the internet. Let’s just say Netflix as an example. You have to have an internet enabled some TV somehow to be able to do that. And I’m like, what’s the harm in having Netflix? Are they gonna give a crap about you having Netflix? And the answer may be yes. That’s crazy. So
well, just be clear that some registration statutes do have proximity restrictions where a person can be prosecuted. But again, even there, they have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When you’re having supervision revocation. The standard is usually just by preponderance slightly moving the needle, because you’re already convicted, and you’re still serving that sentence from the previous conviction. So therefore, what it takes to sustain a violation of supervision is far less than what it takes to sustain a brand new criminal charge. And the rules of evidence at admissibility of evidence all that’s different than a revocation proceeding a particular fits of parole revocation here at you even have less rights, because that’s generally administrative versus judicial for probation. And that would be
having pornography in my state, you can’t have porn, and then maybe like drinking or something like that’s something that’s actually legal, but by servation conditions is not legal.
That would be the example of other differences of the registry. There’s no registry law. And then we’re going to get an email from Pennsylvania or Texas where they have several commitment. They’re going to say, Larry, but if you had any idea what you were talking about, he would know that here in Pennsylvania, that if you’re a sexually violent predator that you have to do They can compel you to get treatment as a condition. Yes, I actually do know that. But again, that’s an outlier situation, that’s not the norm. You have to have that the there’s a judicial due process to be labeled SVP, however flawed, it may be. And you have to go through that process. And that is how they impose those conditions. All you do, there is some sort of due process process to get you in those conditions. And Pennsylvania, for sure. I’m not sure how they do the SVP in Texas, but in Pennsylvania, it’s a it’s a process they like they, they file a petition to declare you a sexually violent predator. And you have the right to subdue process. It’s not just by the by the time you’re convicted. And those people can be required to do things that others are not that are just simply registered,
and then even to further delineate the differences the difference between parole and probation is pretty extreme to I’d like to personally think of parole and and i think heard different states have different terms for this and you could probably clarify but in my mind parole is like you’re still in prison, but not inside the walls and probation is you know, it’s like you’ve gotten a new job and they can quote unquote like fire you without really a whole lot of reason to fire you. This I don’t know if that helps to make a distinction between the two.
Well, parole is it was historically was was a person getting early released from their presence sentence and not serving all their time behind the walls. As parole has evolved, like Illinois did Mexico. They they call it parole in in Mexico and Illinois. They call it MSR mandatory supervised release, people you serve all your time in prison, and then they release you under the control of the parole board. And the case of Illinois, the prison Review Board, but our cases, the parole board, and they call it a peer to parole. But in the literal sense of traditional parole, it would be an early release for present. So therefore, since you’re still serving your present sentence, you had a farm Less expectation because you were conditional released from prison to begin with. So therefore, it, it was designed to encourage administrators to give people early release. And therefore they didn’t want to make it too difficult to revoke that conditional release. Because if you’d make it too difficult, nobody would ever take a chance to release somebody. But on probation, it has been a deliberately granted to you as an alternative to present. And in some cases, it’s a split sentence where they stacked prison and then followed by probation, but in many cases, that alternative to present, so therefore, that the expectation was it that was serving as an opportunity for rehabilitation. And therefore due process, you’re about to lose your liberty. So there’s a lot of due process that a probation revocation, but not as by just there would be in the guilty, innocent phase of a brand new charge, because you already are convicted while you’re on probation. You are convicted person at that point, even if they haven’t entered the judgment if you’re on some type of deferred status. You’ve Are to acknowledge guilt to be able to deferred status.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:04
So you don’t have to worry about the witnesses between
you no longer have the presumption of innocence. Well, I think we’ve unless there’s any chat questions, I think we’ve pretty well cleared it up. It’s it’s their vast differences. But again, registry is very debilitating. There are a lot of excesses and registration requirements, but you can’t say it’s the same as probation because it is.
Let me let me toss this one at you it from from what I would envision of coming down the pike when I end up off paper and only have to quote unquote, worry about registration. Going up and visiting the man and doing the fingerprints and all that. Yes, intimidating, debilitating and all that humiliating. But I would still say that the internet piece is the debilitating part.
What particular piece Are you referring to?
The Internet piece of just having my junk flying out though? Yes.
ltss desperate, debilitating. It You if you had the same requirements without your publication that you would mind you would very have a little objection to go into the sheriff’s office once a year.
Mm hmm. All right then. So if anybody has any questions or you want to throw out comments, then you know we you can reach us at registry matters cast at gmail. com, or you can call it 7472 to 74477. Feel free lay it on until Larry He’s full of poop and doesn’t know anything that he’s talking about. Though, Larry, I would totally stand up and defend you that you are the only person that knows all this crap.
Well, not the only there’s one more.
Brenda? Well, I wouldn’t go that far.
Larry, I picked up something off of Reddit that I wanted to to throw your way because this is incredibly disturbing to me. And I thought we would just bet this around for a minute. It says My son is only 14. He’ll be 15 in January. Over the weekend. He’s admitted to some horrible things. I did what I thought was the right thing to do. We went to the police station to turn himself in. That was on Saturday. I’m shocked, scared and feel so much guilt. There are so many things, terrifying things that can happen to my son to my family. The first sir that I spoke with said I could take him home that evening. He also said that investigators will be calling me this week, and that child protective services was notified of the situation. I’m so unsure of the best way to support my son during this time, I think I should get a lawyer for him. But I’m not even sure how to go about doing so. I don’t know what I should be doing to help him get the help that he needs. If anyone out there knows anything about Texas law, or have any advice as to what I should do to help him. I’d appreciate any advice given. First of all, don’t bring your kid to the police station and turn them in. For Pete’s sake. You could go you go to a lawyer, you could go to some kind of treatment provider and start trying to get counseling right off the bat. This was a horrible idea.
Well, I would take issue with a second thing on the treatment provider. He’s already broken a law in most states, they would have a duty to report that so you would be okay. Fair, fair fair. You’d be in the same situation you know mandatory report hmm you’d be likely to mandatory reporting situation. Now if you have a broken the law yet and this is going down a rabbit hole because people, people say, I should be able to go get help you can get help before you break the law.
If you want to go get help if you don’t, if you don’t be specific about who the victim was.
You can but with enough clues, because they’re going to report whatever you tell them, well enough clue is it. Well, if you give them enough with weather report that they follow, the police may be able to piece together what what, what what’s happened, but before you act, you can get treatment. But I think at this point, that machinery is probably unstoppable. Laurier would be a good thing to do. 15 year old at Texas can be prosecuted as an adult He’s like convicted as adult, I think it’s just a matter of the prosecutor side, that’s all I want to do. And by state, it would be very, very hard to prosecute that 15 year old as an adult, it’d be 50, before the before the machinery gets in gear, it’d be very hard to do anything with him other than put him in the juvenile system, which would, would be would be very minor in terms of what the system would do because he’s, he’s a no case can be healthy on his 21st birthday, no matter what he’s done. And those of you that are tired of hearing about this, Cody poses example that all he did was killed his father, and his mother and his sister
on him. And that’s all that’s all we deal with that
and and he walked free almost 21st birthday because he, the state could not beat the burden of showing he was not amenable to treatment. And that’s the burden for putting a person in adult court here. And so, so this, this kid had had he chosen to have been boarded in Mexico, he would have much
to have that. Oh, very much lottery again,
and have a lot different potential consequences facing him. But he says he chose Texas. It’s very scary to me too. And I just sure wished it that what people would think about is going to the police was a serious crime. Well, the confession is just not generally wise, you go to an attorney, if you if you feel the need to talk about something like that, and the attorney can figure out and advise the strategy of whether or not to go to the police. And if it’s something that’s going to surface anyway, it may be wise for the attorney to go to the police go the prosecution and try to cut a deal. If it’s something that’s not going to surface anyway, then I’ll leave that to the legal professional that’s licensed in your state to advise you but go into the police that’s not generally wise, then I would encourage anybody who’s thinking about going to police.
That’s a that is literally the thing that I wanted to talk about was the idea that mom had and the mindset behind Mom to like, hey, they’re there to help us. I really that’s where I was trying to go on with this.
Well, that’s exactly what she would have thought. I mean, you, you, you grow up big that being drilled into you, when you were growing up in my era, they always tell you if you have any problem at all, you can always approach a police officer. So this is a mom’s mind was a problem. And the person to approach was a police officer. I mean, I can’t say that the thinking is completely illogical. But I’m with you on that.
And it but and it probably should be the mindset that we that they are there to help us but I don’t think that we are there anymore. I don’t
Um, I just want to touch on one little one little a concept and it was submitted by a person named tech addict. And he said he sent me a Wikipedia article is called confabulation. And the general definition of it is just to have a conversation about excuse me, and I wanted to have a conversation about being an accurate without the intent to deceive. Which is what confabulation means. Because we talked about people doing false confessions and so forth. Like they have no intent to be deceitful, necessarily, not false confession, excuse me false accusations, maybe that they don’t have the intent to deceive. They’re just inaccurate and they’re thinking
I can buy into that. I think that from my personal experience of my family, I think that people have my situation told me things that I know just didn’t happen the way they said it happened. And their mind is crystal clear is that my mind is it didn’t happen the way they’re saying happened. Now, yep, the total total recollection of what we were putting foster care exactly what happened on that day in 1966. Lots of Well actually, that’s not what happened at all. Even even mented what happened because I saw what the way it went down. And so so. So I don’t think they have any intent at all. I think. I think Probably through a combination of life experience and being around people who have told stories that were horrible that they’ve adopted a little bit of the stories of blended into the recollection. But I’ll tell you don’t that’s not what happened. That’ll that day. I’m sorry. My recollection is pretty accurate as far as I’m concerned, and you you reflect something that just did not happen.
And lastly, we received a question that came in through Discord. And to just summarize the whole thing, it says something about a sort of relief from the judge at the original sentencing in New York. And did you want to just provide a quick short little answer on that?
The answer was, I truly don’t know what what the benefits of that would be. So I wish I could help but I don’t know.
Well, all right, then Larry. As always, you are the bestest, bestest, bestest co host in the world. You know, all the things and I can’t thank you enough for joining.
Well, how do people How do people listen to this podcast if they want it if they want to hear it?
Well, we we usually record the show live on Saturday nights at seven o’clock eastern. There’s a Discord server. And if you go check out the show notes, you can get in there and sign up and listen to us live. But if you can’t listen, live, this is the most important thing. You can always do it on demand, which is the whole point anyway to listen to it on demand on your schedule when you want to do it. We want to make this available to you at your convenience. If you would do me a favor and subscribe. You can do this in your favorite podcast app like on Apple or Google or Stitcher, slacker, slacker or pocket casts, overcast whatever, even YouTube, I have a channel out there release these things and we get I don’t know we get a pretty good number of people listening to it from there too. And by doing it with a podcast app, it will show up on your device the day like minutes hours after I release it so you will have it on your drive for your morning commute on Tuesday mornings. And it also send a signal to these apps that hey, this is a podcast that I like and it will help others People find it.
So the board website is the more people who, who sign up to receive this on their app. Because like I said, You’re talking, you’re talking, if if I wasn’t recording, I would have no clue what you’re talking about. podcast app. I said, What? What is a podcast app? Just I’ve just recently I’ve just recently last year and a half started downloading apps on my phone. So a person Well, I do. So when they when they sign up. Is there something magical about each time a person receives a notification Rob podcast does that make us grow because other people are receiving this that it makes us look better?
It’s make makes an association that if a person listens to these different podcasts, so they maybe they listen to other criminal justice reform apps, so then the app learns that you like those kind of podcasts, and then it may suggest other ones to you and this might be one of those that it suggests that they listen to
I see. So and
a podcast app is a simple think of it kind of like a web browser that you know, you load a web browser and then you go to web pages, but a podcast app, you subscribe to not a fee, subscribe, but you’re telling it that you want to receive these. And then it goes out on a periodic basis, whether that’s every hour every several times a day, and checks to see if there’s a new episode. And auto magically pulls the episode down into your device. And then it’s just on your phone. And then while you’re cleaning, you have some headphones on you’re in the car, you press play and you listen to the podcast, to and from work.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:36
Well, that’s awesome.
I think it’s the best I have like 60 subscriptions to different shows. politics, religion, technology, some entertainment ones, and I’m just constantly all the time listening to podcasts. Well,
I noticed on our on our YouTube channel we have we’re approaching 200 subscribers, I think.
Yeah, we are. That’s very true. Yeah. So
that that’s the Fantastic but but I want to be at 1000 by the end of the year.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:04
Dude we have like what? We have about 17 days till the end of the year. Yeah, right. We need to grow fast. You people get busy.
Yes everyone bring in to do subscribers. I agree that still won’t get it and probably not
so everybody uh, you know, you can visit us at registry matters.co. And from there you can find the show notes and you can find all the links to all of the things and with that we’re going to shut this mother down.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:29
Good night, Andy.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:31
Take care. Bye bye
Transcribed by https://otter.ai