Massive Demand to
Lock Up the Innocent
in a Democracy
Florida Supreme Court
The Myth That
Burns Our Cities
Mock Trials and the
New York Police
and Justice Reforms
William Barr is a
Debating with the
Letters to my
Justice without Fraud
Challenge to Republicans
Running for Office
Voters Give Police
A Mandate To Lie
Republican Cop Cult
Disconnects from Reality
Worse than Immigration
Timeline of Destruction
of the Republican Party
Quick History of
In Defense of Perjury
Is A Vice
Common Cause of
Embarrassed Cop Setup
John Alberto Torres
Juries With Politicians
Sheriff Wayne Ivey's
John Alberto Torres Supports Replacing Juries With Politicians
It is in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution: Our Founders craved trials by jury. Why? Is it because jurors are smarter or more just than other people? It is because jurors are the least corruptible. And they are cumulative. Every conviction has to be approved by 12 additional random people, peers of the accused, with no connection or interest in the case.
It is because jurors are not accountable to the voters or to the victim or to anyone else, that they are the least corruptible. And that is also precisely the reason they are hated, and are an endangered species throughout history.
John Alberto Torres has recently advocated for a "Conviction Integrity Unit" in the 18th Judicial Circuit:
What is a Conviction Integrity Unit? It is basically a jury of politicians, or political actors. It is an insane idea, that if we find the trial by jury process is broken for some reason, we are going to add a jury of public officials, or officials appointed by politicians and paid by the government.
What will be the incentives facing the politicians on the Conviction Integrity Unit, when they get to sit in judgment of who is innocent and who is guilty? Will they make a name for themselves by being contrary and letting everyone out, innocent and guilty alike? Or will they answer to tough-on-crime voters, and those who sympathize with victims and hate untermenschen, and keep everyone in, innocent and guilty alike?
You might say their incentive will be to seek truth and justice. But how will the public monitor their work, and decide whether they are fulfilling that mandate, to seek truth and justice? Certainly every voter cannot go through the evidence and testimony himself with a fine comb, to see if the voter agrees with what the Conviction Integrity Unit spits out. Rather the public will measure the work of the Conviction Integrity Unit by comparing it to their own ideas of who is really innocent and guilty, whipped up with gossip and tidbits, by a sensational news media for clicks.
In essence, the Conviction Integrity Unit will be what every assault on the jury is, a belief by some other group of people that it is their right to decide. In this case, it would be the news media, people like John Alberto Torres, whom the Conviction Integrity Unit would answer to. A Conviction Integrity Unit physically located in a particular county, would be captive to the same political incentives and deterrents as the police and prosecutor in that county are already governed by. Except there would be some additional politics, where they get to pick one prosecutor as a fall guy and let one person out of prison each year, for TV.
The real solution if the jury trial is broken and convicting innocent people, is to fix the jury trial!
One problem people like John Alberto Torres complain about, is coerced jailhouse confession so-called witnesses. Every inmate in the jail for any amount of time, and facing any kind of sentence, is soon educated how all he has to do is claim another inmate in a tough case confessed, and he gets to go home. And there is no penalty, but only a reward for perjury, no matter how much physical evidence the claimed confession disagrees with.
There are literally hundreds more inmates willing to claim someone confessed to get out, than there are accused willing to confess to strangers and get life in prison as a result. So the ratio of straight liars to actual jailhouse confessions is likely to be hundreds to one. And nor is this just a theory, actual experience backs this up.
What are some solutions to this? Certainly none of the ones the Florida Supreme Court and other lawmakers consider. A judge can no more determine if a claimed confession is reliable, than a judge can determine if hearsay is reliable. Others argue that a jury has a sacred ancient right to hear these witnesses, even though a simple policeman can deprive the jury of any witness whose narrative he doesn't like, just by losing his name. Or you can outlaw coerced witnesses altogether, which would be the simplest and most reliable solution. But police and prosecutors who get to play fake heroes convicting innocents of murder with these confessions, will squeal all day and threaten the voters with death.
How about... tell the jury the truth? That is not currently allowed under case law. You are not allowed to tell jurors what past crimes a jailhouse witness has been convicted of, such as if he was convicted of the exact crime and the exact story he claims another inmate confessed to. You are not allowed to say the word "liar" in front of the jury. You are not allowed to say "the ratio of straight liars to actual jailhouse confessions is likely to be hundreds to one" in front of the jury. You are certainly not allowed to tell the jury exactly what the Florida Supreme Court themselves published, that "informant perjury was a factor in nearly 50% of wrongful murder convictions."
It just seems so simple, if a jury is getting it wrong, you are not telling them the truth. You are not telling them everything. You are literally not getting a trial of the facts by the jury. If witnesses are lying to the jury, create a penalty for perjury. If prosecutors are leading witnesses to lie in front of the jury, and hiding evidence from the jury, the solution is not to create a jury of politicians like a military tribunal, who have different rules of evidence, and who are allowed to use the word liar. The solution is to create a penalty for prosecutors who get caught hiding evidence and supervising lies in front of the jury. The solution is to create a penalty for prosecutors who get caught committing the most heinous crime which tears up our democracy, of convicting innocents.
Do the same thing you want to do in the Conviction Integrity Unit - relax the rules of evidence to add more of it, bring in whatever discovery you find later, call liars "liars" - except do it in front of the less corruptible jury. Instead of in front of politicians five years later, and supervised by the news media. And create an independent regulator of prosecutors who is adversarial - like the news media is to the prosecutors themselves - but with actual teeth in the form of punishment for wrongdoers, instead of more votes for more convictions, discovered to be false 15 years later if ever.
Or if leftists really cannot tolerate the irrationality and biases of jurors, and those on the right cannot suffer their lack of accountability, just be honest and up front and take it out of the Constitution. I think all the irrationality and biases of jurors that leftists object to - convicting drug users of crimes they didn't commit, just for being drug users, believing state testimony over drug user testimony - can be fixed by simply saying the truth in front the jury: Cops and prosecutors lie, and can be just as evil and sociopathic as accused criminals. Just as evil as the British our Founders fled from, just as evil as Nazis. And this is what the penalties are and aren't for cops and prosecutors who lie and convict the innocent. You figure it out!
Lay it all out in front of the jury: These are the penalties that prosecutors and police do and don't face for lying and being wrong and convicting innocents. They are rewarded sometimes for it, by a gullible public! You figure it out! That is a trial by jury.
It is no surprise that in the exotic pet shop of mediocre social climbers that is Central Florida, a news reporter would advocate replacing juries with a committee of political actors that is more answerable to news reporters. This is just more of the same, only one more group added to the mix. We already have a bunch of idiots who think their opinions are more important than a jury, we don't need to create and pay two more sets of them.
Unless, of course, you want to pay me to tell you who is guilty in the end. I am totally open to that and I would do a much better job.
There is another way of looking at this, that should help you realize the "Conviction Integrity Unit" is pure evil, without John A. Torres of Florida Today realizing, or intending for it to be.
I have written elsewhere, how prosecutors have developed a variety of tricks, to answer the voters' demands to cut the jury out of the loop (like everyone in history always does), and convict whomever they want. One of these is jailhouse confession so-called witnesses. Another is prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence.
The simplest way is police just lie. Florida law says police who break the law are investigated by their own department. So cops can lie and fake evidence to predetermine the outcome of trials, and convict whomever they want. And to the extent they are able to convince voters the people they have taken off the streets are untermenschen, it is approved. The mayor, the sheriff, look the other way, they reward instead of punish the misconduct. They say we are doing good things here, getting undesirables off the streets and making the world a better place. Who would punish a cop who lied to guarantee that goal?
If you doubt this happens, there are plenty of examples of jailhouse witnesses lying to convict innocents. Plenty of examples of prosecutors hiding evidence. And when they get caught, there is no penalty or consequence. I have written hundreds of pages, illustrating how cops straight faked evidence to convict my friend, and there is zero penalty for it.
And what do police need to do when they get caught, or when someone complains, to protect this heinous racket? They need to let the people they falsely convicted out as quickly as possible, so nobody complains. They say we are going to convict everyone, guilty and innocent, to get untermenschen off the streets and make the voters happy. And then if there are one or two people out of 100's where the voters object to it, or the newspaper tells the voters they should object to those one or two people, we will use this Conviction Integrity Unit to let those people out. Now everyone is happy, and there is no public objection left whatsoever. There is no public outcry, that we have developed a standard process, to cheat and use lies to make juries irrelevant and convict the innocent.
This totally protects the scam from the political process. It basically says, rather than change the law to fix the jury trial and prevent us from convicting innocents, how about we just let out the one or two really popular people you want to let out? Would you let us keep doing what we are doing then? Sure you would.
This completes the elimination of jury trials. Police and prosecutors convict 100% of undesirables, regardless of whether they are guilty of the particular crime they have been convicted of. And then the news media decides who is actually not guilty, and they should let out. The transfer of power from the jury to the news media, has become complete. It is literally an insane dystopia, and it is actually happening!
It's like if Germans rounded up all the Jews. And then John A. Torres comes along and says hold up, we actually really like Billy Crystal. We really liked Kid Rock, who knew he was Jewish? So the Conviction Integrity Unit lets Kid Rock and Billy Crystal out. And then says now is everybody happy? Can we get on with exterminating the Jews? Sure you can. We have tweaked it to make sure it is palatable to 51% of voters.
Suppose it gets down to 49% voter support, and people want to change the law to stop us convicting the innocent. We say what one person could we let out, to get back 2% of you and get back to 51% support? Not Crosley Green. Never mind that he is guilty, but he is also a really scary black guy. We would lose 20% of voters to get the 2%. Oh, Grandma Axe Murderer, the media would get off our backs if we let her out? Done. Do I have 51% support again to railroad the innocent? Thank you.
Who is up for getting rid of appeals courts, the CIU works much better, doesn't it? We just let the media try the cases, and try them on Twitter. And then vote for who is guilty, and who gets let out. You can be 100% sure the voter is not going to complain about that! Pure evil.