A few years back, probably 2011 (while I was still in prison) I thought of a
marvelous way to virtually destroy the Federal criminal "justice" system. At
least, the people who make up that system will certainly think it is being
destroyed. I mentioned it a few years ago. It might cost little more than $10
million per year.
There are many high-profile cases which would militate in favor of initiating
such a system. One, Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life terms for,
ostensibly, running the Silk Road website. Another Kim Dotcom, who is
threatened with extradition in New Zealand. Julian Assange, whose story is too
well known here to need to describe it. Edward Snowden, who is presumably
still in Moscow for leaking a huge quantity of NSA information. There are also
major drug cases, such as El Chapo, Joaquin Guzman.
In some of these cases, the defendant should have had a lot of money, such as
Ulbricht, although it was lost to the Feds. Kim Dotcom may still be rich.
Julian Assange could probably raise a lot of money, Snowden might do so as
well. Guzman, and probably many other Mexican drug cartels, could easily raise
millions per year, if they actually wanted to do this. Maybe even Martha
Stewart would hold some residual grudges. Anyone who thinks he is at risk of
Federal criminal prosecution would want to see the system essentially shut
down.
How? Well, let's go to the statistics. Last year, there were 77,152 new
criminal defendants in the Federal criminal system, see
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/28/federal-criminal-prosecutions-fall-to-lowest-level-in-nearly-two-decades/
. According to
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/FY16_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf
, "In fiscal year 2016 the vast majority of offenders (97.3%) pleaded
guilty." If that figure can be believed, then there were presumably no more
than 2.8% x 77,152 criminal trials, or only 2160 trials. Perhaps this
statistic would surprise most people. I think the average sentence is about 3
years.
The ability of the Federal criminal system to actually put on criminal trials
is very limited. There are only a limited number of courts, and judges, and
prosecutors, and this system must share space and time with civil trials. It
is quite possible that it would be very difficult to put on much more than
those 2160 trials. That court space has to be shared with civil cases, as
well. All, or at least most of those people had a right to a jury trial. If
all, or most of those defendants were somehow motivated to demand such a trial,
rather than plead guilty, havoc would ensue. Even if the number of trials
could increase, say to about 3000, then the remainder, 77,152-3000, or 74,152,
would have to walk free, because the system could not possibly try them all.
The limitation is not merely court space: Trials are "expensive" in
preparation, research, and evidence.
And that led me to yet another "awfully wonderful, wonderfully awful" idea, to
paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch. What would motivate all of these people
to demand a jury trial? Well, currently they are threatened with much more
punishment if they plead not guilty and demand a trial, and lose. Like a
variant on the "Prisoner's dilemma", each one is forced to conclude that it is
better to 'take the deal' rather than resist, and demand a trial.
What would change this system around? Well, the lot of a prisoner in Federal
prison is poor, if he has no money. No money, no commissary. No drinks,
cookies, crackers, soups, candies, etc. I know: I spent 13 years in prison,
time I shouldn't have spent. Many enter prison broke. What if they were
offered, say, $3000 if they agreed to demand a jury trial, and thus forced the
government to actually put them on trial, form a jury, and put on a trial. If
the government dropped the case, or reduced the charges to something that
didn't require a trial, the defendant would get nothing.
If we assume that the Federal court system could put on 3,000 trials, one
defendant per trial typically, the cost for such a project would be 3,000 x
$3,000, or 9 million dollars. It would be limited by the number of actual
trials the Feds could put on each year, multiplied by the dollar amount that
would have to be paid to motivate a defendant to demand a trial.
Tell each new Federal defendant that if he pleads not guilty, and insists on a
jury trial, and if he actually gets that trial, he will be paid the $3,000.
Guilty or not guilty, it won't matter. Have a trial, get the money, simple as
that. I am merely guessing what the 'proper' figure would be, in order to
motivate such people adequately. But if most people were already demanding a
jury trial, and tens of thousands of fellow defendants were being freed due to
lack of ability to give them trials, it shouldn't take a lot of money to induce
these people to 'stand in line', and demand a trial. After all, they would
know that if they didn't get the money, that would mean that they would have
been freed. And that's the goal, isn't it? At least for the defendant, that
is.
You can imagine what would happen. The Feds would have to ration trials. Only
the most "worthy" defendants would get prosecuted. And yes, there are
definitely some worthy defendants. I met a few!! But the total number of
people who could enter the Federal prison system per year would drop from
perhaps 75,000 per year to 3,000 per year. This year, there are about 185,300
Federal prisoners. Drop the input to 3,000 per year, and the total population
could easily drop to 20,000, and perhaps to as low as 10,000, after a few
years. Dozens of prisons across the nation would have to close, maybe well
over 100.
It costs approximately $40,000 to feed and house a Federal prisoner. Most of
that money probably goes to prison staff salaries and supplies, and most of the
rest goes to prison construction. Drop the total Federal prison population
from 185,000 to 15,000, and they will save about 170,000 multiplied by $40,000,
or about $6.8 billion dollars per year.
Doesn't this sound like a worthy goal?
We may speculate about who would be motivated to fund such a project. Give
them the ability to donate anonymously, and they might act. There might
arguably be 200,000 people per year who fear some sort of Federal prosecution.
A donation of $50 per year, average, would raise $10 million. It would not
take many tax evaders, resistors, or avoiders to foot the bill. People who
resented a prior prosecution would add up, as well.
Why not?
Jim Bell
