It only took only took 9 years for the U.S. to badger Majiid Khan
into confessing to
numerous terrorist activities, including conspiracies with the mad Sheik
Khalid Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden, whom he has never met, and the bombing
in Jakarta in 2003, though he was in custody five months before it
happened. When Mr. Khan mentioned something about the agreement
meaning he couldn't sue the CIA for mistreatment, the live video feed was
cut off.
Is this some kind of joke? Why do people take these plea bargains
seriously? If the U.S. had evidence against Khan, why would they
accept an 18 year sentence? If he was really co-responsible for
the deaths of 50 people in Jakarta-- would they not have sought the death
penalty?
There is only one reason why they would not: no evidence. And if
you have no evidence, it may take 9 years, but you will get a plea bargain,
if that's what you want.
96% of federal criminal cases are resolved by plea
bargain.
That means that 96% of the time no judge or jury hears the
evidence and makes a decision about whether or not a person deserves to be
punished and how severe the punishment should be.
That means that 96% of
the time a suspect is confronted with this choice: take a sure conviction of
a lesser offense and less prison time, or take a chance on a trial for a
more serious crime and, possibly, a much longer prison sentence.
As you are thinking it over, consider this: juries in the U.S.
absolutely love to convict. They just love,
love, love it. They will convict you in the morning, convict you in
the night; they will convict you based on nothing, except the word of a law
enforcement officer or prosecutor who just feels very, very sure that the
defendant is guilty, and the identification of a distant blind witness who
saw you from 300 meters away on a dark night in the rain and picked you out
of a police lineup because you were the only one complaining about being in
a police lineup.
We know the system often fails because of the all the
convictions that have been reversed based on DNA evidence. But as long
as most of those convictions are of black men, our society doesn't care.
We have
the opportunity to go back and re-examine those cases to try to figure out
why these men were convicted in the first place. The answer-- aside
from the obvious-- is: it's
hard to tell.
You might believe that prosecutors and police are honorable,
ethical professionals who never let personal ambition sway their decisions
about how to handle a criminal case. I think you would be wrong.
There are too many examples of prosecutors or police who were more
interested in a conviction than in the reputation of the criminal justice
system. Exculpatory evidence is often hidden from the defense.
Dubious "expert" witnesses testify about fibers or chemicals or traces of
substances found on the victim that could "only" have come from the
suspect's car or closet, to the exclusion of all other possible suspects or
cars or closets even though no other suspects or cars or closets were
examined.
