Do You Have a Right to be Treated Like a Criminal?

[BvBPL]

About a year ago, there was a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Worcester, Massachusetts. Protesters blocked traffic in a busy intersection. Four protestors were arrested for disturbing the peace. Johnny Law offered to let them off without charge if they promised not to demonstrate by blocking traffic again. The four refused. Then they were offered a deal that would avoid further liability in exchange for a $150 fine, this offer was also refused. The demonstrators sought a jury trial on the matter of their disturbing of the peace charge. There was some difficulty in finding jurors, apparently the juror pool was deemed to small to support a jury (an absurd claim).

The criminal charges were then dismissed, leaving a merely civil charge. In the US you have a right to a jury trial for criminal matters, but not for civil ones. With the removal of the criminal charges, the remaining civil charges were heard before a judge on a bench trial. As such, the four were denied the opportunity to speak in front of a jury.

Generally speaking, most people want to avoid criminal liability. These demonstrators want to have a criminal trial in order to address the jury. They want to be treated as criminals, or rather as people facing criminal charges.

There are other occasions where one may prefer a criminal trial over a civil one. In a criminal trial, there is a right against self-incrimination meaning that the defendant need not take the stand and subject herself to cross-examination and character attacks. That is not the case in a civil proceeding.

So the question before you is whether someone should have a right to be treated as a potential criminal before the court? I would appreciate it if we could focus on that question rather than broader issues around Black Lives Matter and such.

This op-ed is full of some nonsense, but also has a pretty good summation of the facts.

 

[Silurian]

Prosecutions should be undertaken for the general public good not the individuals.
The court is not a stage for the individuals.

PS I have sat down on a major road bridge in central London.

 

[warpus]

No. If it's a civil matter, deal with it in a civil trial and civil courts. If it's a criminal matter, deal with it in a criminal court. If it's both, then both.

If the judge/prosecutor/whoever has an agenda and is funneling these people to a court not of their choosing.. well, that sounds like a conspiracy to me. But it's probably just the system working as it was designed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How does it become a civil matter? Is some citizen filing suit against them, or is this a case of "the state filed suit on behalf of the people"? We give "the state" authority in matters of crime, and we give the state ample opportunity and firepower in the field of law enforcement. In my opinion if the state is going to act on behalf of the people it should do so in criminal court, rather than dodge into the civil courts.

 

[Darkflight]

Like Timsup2nothin, I don't really understand what kind of civil case there is against these people at all at this point. My assumption based on what I read is that they were charged with a crime and then the crime charge was dismissed by a judge. What kind of civil case is there in that case?

As a sidenote, that op-ed site killed my browser with its scripts. I hate sites like that.

 

[Nexlev]

No, but I would like to clarify something. It won't affect my answer, but I would like to make sure I understand the question.

Is the question should people have the right to a criminal trial in lieu of a civil trial? In other words, should they elect to face a criminal jury, then the civil charges would be dropped?

Also, would this apply to all civil cases regarding criminal matters, or just ones where the state is the plaintiff in the civil case?

 

[warpus]

Is the question should people have the right to a criminal trial in lieu of a civil trial? In other words, should they elect to face a criminal jury, then the civil charges would be dropped?

That sounds like "cheating" a bit, if somebody wants to sue you in civil court for damages, they should be able to, whether you were prosecuted for a related criminal matter in criminal court or not.

 

[Nexlev]

I found some articles on the case in question and I think I know the answer to my question. The protesters were charged with a civil infraction, which is different from a civil suit with a plaintiff other than the state. To the question should people be able to choose to be prosecuted with a criminal offense rather than a civil infraction; I still say probably not but I don't feel very strongly about that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That sounds like "cheating" a bit, if somebody wants to sue you in civil court for damages, they should be able to, whether you were prosecuted for a related criminal matter in criminal court or not.

Agreed, but the reverse is also "cheating" and seems to be what we have here. The state does not feel comfortable for whatever reason with pursuing criminal charges, despite the fact that criminal courts are totally loaded in favor of the state. So their solution should be "okay, drop the charges" not "hey, let's take a different angle on this and try civil court."

One thing should be noted in particular. You have a right to a defense by an attorney in criminal court and one will be provided. Defending yourself against a lawsuit, even if brought by the government, is your own problem. That's "cheating" right there, in a major way. A public defender may be no match for a prosecutor, but they are at least in the same general universe. NO ONE can compete with the limitless number of attorney hours that government can throw at a lawsuit should they be inclined.

 

[warpus]

To the question should people be able to choose to be prosecuted with a criminal offense rather than a civil infraction; I still say probably not but I don't feel very strongly about that.

It wouldn't really make sense to let people choose, I don't think. Criminal charges are always filed by someone from the legal system itself, such as a prosecutor. I probably have that bungled up somehow, but citizens can't sue themselves in a criminal court from what I understand, it is up to someone from the system filing criminal charges against a person.

A civil suit on the other hand can be filed by anyone. I could sue you today, for whatever reason, I don't need the state's permission, mine or yours.

So in my mind it wouldn't make sense to give people the option to choose, because they are different court systems, used for different things.

Agreed, but the reverse is also "cheating" and seems to be what we have here. The state does not feel comfortable for whatever reason with pursuing criminal charges, despite the fact that criminal courts are totally loaded in favor of the state. So their solution should be "okay, drop the charges" not "hey, let's take a different angle on this and try civil court."

Is that really what's happening here, though?

One thing should be noted in particular. You have a right to a defense by an attorney in criminal court and one will be provided. Defending yourself against a lawsuit, even if brought by the government, is your own problem. That's "cheating" right there, in a major way. A public defender may be no match for a prosecutor, but they are at least in the same general universe. NO ONE can compete with the limitless number of attorney hours that government can throw at a lawsuit should they be inclined.

Well, that points to the system being broken in other ways, I think. If someone sues you and loses, they should have to pay all of your legal fees, for instance, by default. That is what happens in some countries, I believe. For some reason Germany comes to mind, but I have no idea why, if that's accurate, etc.

 

[bhavv]

I would sure like to have a free room with a TV, free food and a free gym membership.

Prison is paradise.

 

[warpus]

I would sure like to have a free room with a TV, free food and a free gym membership.

Prison is paradise.

Don't forget the mandatory daily shower games that take place in American prisons.

 

[bhavv]

So free hookers too? Wow!

 

[Nexlev]

Civil infractions are usually used for things that carry minor penalties or are difficult/impractical to prove, this is my understanding at least. Things that are "less than a misdemeanor" but still against the law. Like reckless driving, not coming to a complete stop, illegal parking, jaywalking, public intoxication, violation of building/zoning codes, etc.

I guess the question could be whether an infraction could be levied as either a civil or criminal infraction rather than up to the judge and/or prosecutors discretion. i.e. disruption of the peace is always civil infraction, or always criminal.

 

[Martin Alvito]

From what I can tell of Massachusetts state law, a civil infraction is a sufficiently minor affair that its punishment is fine-only (maximum $5000 if statute doesn't otherwise stipulate the fine, which it generally appears to do). The system basically treats these offenses as not worth the expense and bother of a full trial; it's the criminal court equivalent of small claims court. Either the prosecution or the defendant may move to handle things in such a fashion.

Since the prosecution made the motion, we can infer that either they felt that their case was weak or that they felt that they couldn't get a fair hearing in the jurisdiction in question, and were better off in front of a judge. It's worth noting that the prosecution's job is NOT really to pursue justice, crazy as that sounds. The prosecutor determines whether they believe there's enough evidence to secure a conviction, and if that's the case then it's their job to pursue the case to the best of their ability. The presumption of our adversarial system of justice is that we're most likely to arrive at justice if both sides present the best case they can; it assumes bias on both sides and relies on a presumably neutral party (judge or jury) to sort through those biases.

So there's nothing morally "wrong" with a prosecutor maneuvering for advantage; both sides do that continually through the legal process. It sounds like the protesters already dodged a significant bullet by not having to disclose that they've been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor on a job application, and based on their refusal of the $150 fine plea deal we should infer that they (correctly) felt that was more valuable than the risk of incurring a more significant fine in a civil infraction proceeding.

Now whether or not that's justice is in the eye of the beholder. It should be apparent that we can think of an existence proof for criminal behavior that isn't worth resolving through trial by jury, such as jaywalking, simply because jury trial is too costly relative to the offense. You could argue that political protesters should be protected from having their cases adjudicated in such a manner, but you're saying something philosophically at that point and it's impossible to prove that any given (valid) philosophy is correct, merely that it's logically sound if you accept the premises.

 

[chijohnaok]

Civil infractions are usually used for things that carry minor penalties or are difficult/impractical to prove, this is my understanding at least. Things that are "less than a misdemeanor" but still against the law. Like reckless driving, not coming to a complete stop, illegal parking, jaywalking, public intoxication, violation of building/zoning codes, etc.

I guess the question could be whether an infraction could be levied as either a civil or criminal infraction rather than up to the judge and/or prosecutors discretion. i.e. disruption of the peace is always civil infraction, or always criminal.

I was thinking along the same lines.
The charges could have been levied as a felony (which would probably entitle the defendant to a jury trial)

OR

they could have been downgraded to a misdemeanor (which would probably not be entitled to a jury trial).

I think a prosecutor normally has leeway as to what charges are going to be filed in a case.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I was thinking along the same lines.
The charges could have been levied as a felony (which would probably entitle the defendant to a jury trial)

OR

they could have been downgraded to a misdemeanor (which would probably not be entitled to a jury trial).

That's not quite how Massachusetts law works. The original charge was presumably a misdemeanor. (Any given charge is either a felony or a misdemeanor, but a lot of statutes are written in ways that permit the prosecutor to bring charges for one, the other or both.) However, under Massachusetts law at least some charges can be converted to a third type of offense, a civil infraction, which is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. Run-of-the-mill traffic tickets, for instance, start out as a civil infraction and are neither a felony nor a misdemeanor.

In any event, both felony and misdemeanor charges that reached trial would be heard by a jury. That's not the case for a civil infraction, which is heard by a judge.

 

[Zkribbler]

I would sure like to have a free room with a TV, free food and a free gym membership.

Prison is paradise.

I've never been to Allendale and so maybe it's like this, but in the usually jail, three's no TV in the cells, the free food is just one step away from being garbage, and there's no gym membership because the gym and the hallways are being used as dormitories.

California' prisons are so overcrowded, every court who has looked at them (including the USSC) has declared incarceration in them to be cruel and unusual punishment. Tens of thousands of prisoners are being given early release to alleviate the problem.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would sure like to have a free room with a TV, free food and a free gym membership.

Prison is paradise.

TV room...place where forty people decide communally what channel to watch. Some of the people in question believe in might makes right far more than democracy. I'm guessing you would not love it.

Food provided at designated meal times only. Must be in line before the doors open. May involve standing in said line for up to an hour or more. This may involve rain, wind, or sun. I'm guessing you would not love it.

Gym facilities adequate, though providing the only location that hosted more fights than the TV rooms. I'm guessing you would not love it.

Prison is a lot of things. Paradise ain't one of them.

 

[BvBPL]

The first time I was in prison I though it was eerily similar to my elementary school. Same cinderblock walls painted in the same neutral tones. Same low, one story buildings. Same courtyard between buildings. Same asphalt basketball court. Different hoop height.