Buck v. Bell

Buck v. Bell is a landmark Supreme Court case in the United States that was decided in 1927. The case involved the constitutionality of a Virginia law that allowed for the forced sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit” or “feebleminded.” The ruling in Buck v. Bell established a precedent that upheld the practice of eugenics and involuntary sterilization.

The plaintiff in the case was Carrie Buck, a young woman who was classified as “feebleminded” and was already the mother of a child considered “feebleminded” as well. Under the Virginia law, she was slated to be involuntarily sterilized to prevent the supposed propagation of hereditary mental illness. Buck’s lawyer argued that the law violated her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Virginia law and ruled in favor of the state. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing the majority opinion, argued that the compulsory sterilization of individuals with mental disabilities was constitutional. He famously stated, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” justifying the state’s interest in preventing the transmission of undesirable traits through procreation.

The Court’s decision in Buck v. Bell legitimized eugenic policies and gave states the legal framework to implement forced sterilization programs. As a result, many states enacted similar laws, and thousands of individuals, mostly women, were sterilized against their will. These programs primarily targeted individuals with mental disabilities, but they also extended to other marginalized groups such as people of color, poor individuals, and those deemed socially undesirable.

The Buck v. Bell ruling remained in effect for several decades, even as attitudes towards eugenics shifted. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that the forced sterilization laws began to be challenged and subsequently repealed or declared unconstitutional by state courts. However, the precedent set by Buck v. Bell has not been explicitly overturned by the Supreme Court, although its principles have been widely discredited and criticized.

The case has become a symbol of the dark history of eugenics and the violation of human rights. It stands as a reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and challenging discriminatory practices based on pseudoscientific notions of genetic superiority or inferiority.

Illegal Firearms Trafficking

Illegal Firearms Trafficking
In Illinois, gun running, also known as illegal firearms trafficking, is a serious criminal offense. The state has strict laws regarding the possession, sale, and transportation of firearms. Engaging in gun running activities is considered a felony under Illinois law.
The Illinois Criminal Code prohibits various activities related to illegal firearms trafficking, including:
Unlawful Sale or Delivery of Firearms: It is illegal to knowingly sell, purchase, possess, or deliver firearms without the appropriate licenses or permits required by state and federal law.
Unlawful Transfer of Firearms: It is illegal to transfer firearms to individuals who are ineligible to possess them, such as convicted felons, individuals with restraining orders, or those with a history of mental illness.
Straw Purchases: A straw purchase occurs when an individual buys a firearm on behalf of someone who is prohibited from owning one. This practice is illegal and can lead to serious penalties.
Possession of Stolen Firearms: It is illegal to possess firearms that have been stolen or unlawfully obtained.
Transporting Firearms without a Valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card: In Illinois, individuals are required to possess a FOID card to own or transport firearms. Transporting firearms without a valid FOID card is a violation of the law.
Penalties for gun running and related offenses in Illinois can vary depending on the specific circumstances and the offender’s criminal history. Convictions for these offenses can result in significant fines, imprisonment, or both.
It’s important to note that the laws surrounding gun running and firearms trafficking can be complex, and the information provided here is a general overview. If you require specific legal advice or have concerns about gun-related activities in Illinois, it’s recommended to consult with a qualified attorney or law enforcement officials for accurate and up-to-date information.

A general outline of the American legal system

A general outline of the American legal system: The American legal system is based on the common law system, which means that it is based on precedents set by previous court cases. The system is divided into two levels: the federal court system and the state court system.
The federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States. District courts are the trial courts of the federal system, and they have jurisdiction over a variety of cases involving federal law. Circuit courts are the appeals courts of the federal system, and they review decisions made by district courts. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal system, and it has the power to decide cases that involve important issues of federal law.
The state court system is divided into two main levels: trial courts and appellate courts. Trial courts are the courts where cases are first heard, and they have jurisdiction over a variety of cases involving state law. Appellate courts review decisions made by trial courts, and they have the power to overturn decisions that they find to be incorrect.
The American legal system is a complex system, but it is designed to ensure that justice is served. The system is based on the principle of due process, which means that everyone has the right to a fair trial. The system is also based on the principle of equal protection, which means that everyone is treated equally under the law.

One of the most important documents in legal history.

One of the most important documents in history.
The Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter, is a historic document that was signed in 1215 by King John of England. The Magna Carta is one of the most significant legal documents in history, and it has been a source of inspiration for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law around the world.
At the time of its signing, the Magna Carta was primarily a document that established limits on the powers of the King. It was written by a group of powerful barons who were frustrated with the King’s authoritarian rule and sought to protect their rights and privileges. The Magna Carta contained provisions that addressed various issues, including the rights of free men, the limits on the power of the King, and the administration of justice.
One of the most significant provisions in the Magna Carta was the right to due process. This provision ensured that no one could be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without being given a fair trial. The Magna Carta also established the principle that the law applies to everyone, including the King, and that no one is above the law.
The Magna Carta also established the principle of taxation with representation. This meant that the King could not levy taxes without the consent of the barons, which was an important step towards establishing a representative government.
While the Magna Carta was primarily a document that addressed the rights of the barons, its impact went far beyond this group. Over time, the Magna Carta became a symbol of freedom and justice, and it inspired many people to fight for their rights and freedoms.
One of the most significant examples of the influence of the Magna Carta was in the development of the United States Constitution. Many of the principles and provisions in the Magna Carta, such as the right to due process, the rule of law, and the principle of taxation with representation, were incorporated into the US Constitution.
The Magna Carta also influenced the development of human rights law around the world. It inspired the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The principles of the Magna Carta continue to be relevant today, and they are a reminder of the importance of protecting human rights, the rule of law, and democratic values.
In conclusion, the Magna Carta is a historic document that played a significant role in the development of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Its provisions addressed issues that were relevant at the time of its signing, and its influence has continued to shape legal and political systems around the world. The Magna Carta serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and freedoms and the rule of law, and its principles continue to be relevant today.

Illinois DUI

Illinois DUI
In Illinois, a DUI (driving under the influence) conviction can result in severe penalties, including fines, jail time, and a driver’s license suspension. However, there are defenses that can be raised to contest a DUI charge.
One potential defense is to challenge the legality of the traffic stop that led to the DUI arrest. If the police did not have a valid reason for stopping the vehicle, any evidence obtained during the stop may be inadmissible in court.
Another defense is to challenge the accuracy of any chemical tests that were conducted, such as a breathalyzer test. These tests can be subject to human error or equipment malfunction, which could lead to inaccurate results.
Additionally, an individual may argue that they were not under the influence at the time of driving, or that any impairment was caused by a medical condition or medication.
Statutory summary suspensions, which are administrative license suspensions that occur separate from any criminal proceedings, may also be challenged. The individual may request a hearing to contest the suspension within 90 days of receiving notice of the suspension.
It is important to note that the best defense strategy will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. It is always recommended to consult with an experienced DUI attorney to help navigate the legal process and defend against the charges.
Louis M. Pissios
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
a professional corporation
9 South County Street
across the street from the courthouse
Waukegan, Illinois 60085
direct email: [email protected]
_________________
Direct Telephone 847.263.0001

Continually Recognized for Our Successful Results

Patrick Kenneally Fundraiser

Last night, Febr12711032_771179639682006_1693335178142886523_ouary 15, 2016,  I had the privilege of hosting a fundraiser for Pat Kenneally the next States Attorney of McHenry County. We had a wonderful time and I want to thank everyone that attended including our distinguished guests among them Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran, soon to be Judge Demetri Tsilimigras and the Hon. James Booras. Also Charvis Walker, John Skoubis, Ric Warchol, Sam Marinakos, Sam Markos, Robert Zalud, Mitch Brick, Spiros Poulos, Andy Poulos, Jerry Doetsch, Daniel Bechtold
and last but not least our hosts Peter Dalamangas at Chasers Sports Bar and Grill in Lake Zurich and Phyllis DeMito. Thanks to all!!

If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway

After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death Saturday at 79, the Supreme Court is now evenly divided between four liberal justices and four conservatives, even with Anthony Kennedy’s occasional swings. What a moment for Scalia to depart: The court faces a wild array of closely divided decisions. It is an election year. And President Obama has stacked the lower circuit courts with Democrats. Obama has been chewing on his legacy for months. Fate has handed him the opportunity of any presidency — to swing the balance of the Supreme Court from conservative to liberal. Scalia weighed heavily on the conservative tilt of the current court, registering as more conservative even than other Republican justices in every field except on international and defense issues. There is no other justice whose replacement would more profoundly affect the court’s orientation. The court’s docket this term shows a clear intent to rule on some of the most contentious issues in the society: abortion, unionization, presidential power, affirmative action, political representation. Nothing in the presidential election in the fall matters more than the ability to shape the court. Now everyone should know that, including an incumbent who once taught constitutional law. Any nominee, of course, would have to be confirmed by the Republican­controlled Senate. Leaders there, and also most GOP presidential candidates, are already making clear that they intend to block Obama. But they may not realize that leaving Scalia’s seat vacant plays right into his hands. The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard. Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example. But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush­hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline. There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies. If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities? A court that cares about its image and constitutional role will not rule in the name of a majority that counts on a dead justice, especially on the core issues of American social life. Such posthumous decisions are so unprecedented they would make Bush v. Gore look like responsible judicial behavior. Chief Justice John Roberts, who in matters entirely internal to the court like this wields some extra power, is known for his concern for institutional prestige, and he would be right to weigh in against issuing opinions based on what Scalia did in past conferences. So in the cases that Scalia was already a part of, what’s most likely is that the court will do what it has done in the rare, similar circumstances in the past, when important cases like abortion were argued and the personnel on the court changed or where a predictable swing justice was out sick: They will order the cases argued again and voted on again. Of course, the justices will also continue to hear future arguments, but upcoming closely decided cases — such as the abortion case out of Texas also widely predicted to lead to a 5 to 4 vote — will now be tied, 4 to 4. In this term’s contentious, controversial docket, split decisions are inevitable. The court can reargue the pending cases and hear the upcoming ones, but they will be too divided to decide anything truly sweeping. Unresolved cases will stack up. That means only Congress and the White House can resolve the deadlock. And Obama has the power there, even though Republicans control the Senate. By Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R­Ky.) had already said the vacancy shouldn’t be filled until the next president is in office, 11 months from now. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But the GOP might soon reconsider if they see the implications of refusing to allow Obama to replace Scalia: A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law. So if Scalia had cast the deciding vote on a case before he died, but the court rehears it and divides 4 to 4, that would leave the lower court decision in place. That’s what would happen with a proposal to apportion Congress in an entirely new way that would heavily favor Republican districts, which was argued recently. The lower court (in this case a district court which went directly to the Supreme Court for technical reasons) tossed the plan out; conservatives had been hoping the justices would restore it. The situation is not always good for liberals. Abortion, in a case that has not yet been argued, was subjected to the most onerous restrictions by the normally conservative Fifth Circuit. If the court deadlocks, most of the abortion clinics in Texas would close. On immigration, the court had announced it would take up another case from the conservative Fifth Circuit over whether Obama has the power to stop breaking up families by ordering the government not to deport millions of undocumented immigrants; the lower court ruling blocked Obama’s executive order, so a tie wouldn’t change that. Most of the country, though, is governed by appeals courts dominated by Democrats. The suit against Obama’s environmental initiative, which the Supreme Court just stayed, came from the liberal D.C. Circuit, which had unanimously refused to grant the stay. Now the Obama administration can simply have the Environmental Protection Agency come up with a slightly different new plan and run to the liberal D.C. courts to bless it and refuse to stay it. It’s unlikely the now­divided Supreme Court would come up with a majority to stay the new rules: The vote to stay the old ones was (naturally) 5 to 4. That’s why the effect of an equally divided court has enormous potential to strengthen Obama’s hand in dealing with the Republican Senate in picking a replacement: Even if the GOP blocks his nominee, the policy outcomes would be very similar to what they’d be if the court had a liberal majority. The institutional cues for Obama are completely different than for the court. The Constitution clearly assigns the task of nominating judges to the president — with the Senate’s advice and consent, to be sure, but for most of American history, presidents got a fair amount of deference. Acting politically is consistent with occupying elected office, so that’s what Obama should do. Political considerations, after all, are what motivate Republicans to pledge to block nominees before any have been announced. This is the moment for Obama to assert his political prerogatives as firmly as his opponents always seem to do. Right now, McConnell sounds like he doesn’t recognize the peril his party is in. If Obama signals that he’s willing to take advantage of the situation by taking actions like passing new environmental rules or moving for rehearing in the pending cases, he’ll put pressure on the Senate by getting what he wants without his court pick. Two­thirds of the people in the country live in blue­court America. So maybe someone like D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan —confirmed 97 to 0 just three years ago — will look better to the Senate than nearly a year of living with the appellate courts going wild while the cat’s away. Imagine the glee in the most­reversed circuit court in the nation, the liberal Ninth, which will now be able to tell Arizona and Alaska what to do without fear of contradiction. If Obama really cares about that legacy, nothing would establish it more firmly than using his unexpected advantage to appoint someone who will one day be as much of a hero to liberals as Scalia was to conservatives.

Illinois DUI Case List

Illinois DUI Case List Expert Witnesses People v. Jones, 2015 IL App (1st) 121016 (04/22/2015) (“foundational element” used to strike a state firearms expert witness) People v. Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d 212, 221 (2009) (court said that the admission of an expert’s testimony requires an adequate reliability foundation) People v. McKown, 236 Ill.2d 278 (2010) (HGN foundations case but see King below) People v. Floyd, 2014 IL App (2d) 120507 (March 2014) (retrograde extrapolation based on a single breath test is more speculation than science) Soto v. Gaytan, 313 Ill. App. 3d 137 (2000) (another case that talks about a foundational element) People v. Negron, 2012 IL App (1st) 101194 (2012) (another case that allows a fingerprint expert to testify but discusses Safford’s foundations test) Discovery Sanctions People v. Tsiamas, 2015 IL App (2d) 140859 (December 2015) (State can’t ignore discovery notice) People v. Moravec, 2015 IL App (1st) 133869 (November 2015) (DUI sanctions UPHELD) People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920 (DUI evidence suppressed after video is destroyed) People v. Aronson, 408 Ill.App.3d 946 (2011) (failure to make a copy is a sanctionable) People v. Strobel, 2014 IL App (1st) 130300 (June 2014) (no discovery violation occurred here so it was error to impose a discovery sanction) People v. Olsen, 2015 IL App (2d) 140267 (June 2015) (error for the trial judge to suppress evidence due to a purported discovery violation) People v. Moises, 2015 IL App (3d) 140577 (August 2015) (trial court’s decision to grant a discovery sanction is reversed because there was no discovery violation when officer did not record the FST) Probable Cause Navarette v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014) (anonymous 911 call justifies traffic stop) People v. Anderson, 2013 IL App (2d) 121346 (October 2014) People v. Butorac, 2013 IL App (2d) 110953 (December 2014) (officers may board a boat to enforce registration requirements) People v. Cummings, 2014 IL 115769 (March 2014) People v. Gonzalez­Carrera, 2014 IL App (2d) 130968 (September 2014) People v. Timmsen, 2014 IL App (3d) 120481 (July 2014) (it’s ok to avoid a traffic roadblock so long as you don’t break any other traffic laws) People v. Santovi, 2014 IL App 2014 IL App (3d) 130075 (May 2014) (no pc to arrest defendant before cop yells at the women and orders her to open the bathroom door or he’ll kick it down) People v. Taiwo, 2015 IL App (3d) 140105 (April 2015) (proper to stop a car for a lane infraction when the cop had a hunch the car was connected to an accident he was investigating) Rescissions & Suspended DLs People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308 (January 2014) (recession only acts prospectively and has no retroactive effect, thus rescinding a suspension will not undue convictions based on that suspension) People v. Smith, 2013 IL App (2d) 121164 (November 2013) (DWLS can’t be revoked) People v. Clayton, 2014 IL App (4th) 130340 (March 2014) (even if notice was tampered with by the cop defendant had actual notice of his pending suspension) People v. Gaede, 2014 IL App (4th) 130346 (November 2014) (defendant withdrew his consent and implied consent statute found constitutional) People v. Morales, 2015 IL App (1st) 131207 (January 2015) (suspension reinstated defendant received proper notice from the police on the day of his arrest and had more than ample opportunity to challenge the suspension in court) People v. McLeer, 2015 IL App (2d) 140526 (February 2015) (officer amends the report after it was issued, suspension stands because SOS had enough information that the notice was given) People v. Gutierrez, 2015 IL App (3d) 140194 (July 2015) (A PBT test is not a statement, thus, the officer’s DL suspension is proper) Blood & BAC People v. Wuckert, 2015 IL App (2d) 150058 (December 2015) (625 ILCS 5/111­501.4 trumps hospital policy that the results should not be used for legal purposes) People v. Armer, 2014 IL App (5th) 130342 (October 2014) (warrantless blood draw suppressed when not done with consent nor under exigent circumstances) People v. Harris, 2015 IL App (4th) 140696 (May 2015) (consensual blood draws ok) People v. Weidner, 2014 IL App (5th) 130022 (March 2014) (no error to wipe defendant’s arm with an alcohol wipe before hospital took his blood) People v. Hutchinson, 2013 IL App (1st) 1023332 (November 2013) (no error in admitting report of lab results as a business record) People v. Harris, 2014 IL App (2d) 120990 (May 2014) (state had problems showing the breathalyzer was certified) People v. Eagletail, 2014 IL App (1st) 130252 (December 2014) (logbook and printout admissible even though printout was made years after the breath test) People v. Chiaravalle, 2014 IL App (4th) 140445 (December 2014) (officer made a continuous observation even though he may have had his back to the defendant from time to time) People v. Thomas, 2014 IL App (2d) 130660 (May 2014) (speedy trial violated when police waited to issue BAC citation they already knew what the hospital blood BAC was) People v. Torruella, 2015 IL App (2d) 141001 (August 2015) (no error here when the trial judge accepted calibration records of the breathalyzer as a business record and no error when the court disregarded the defense expert’s testimony) People v. Smith, 2015 IL App (1st) 122306 (August 2015) (state failed to establish that the machine was properly certified within the 62 day window required by the regulations) Evidence People v. Blakey, 2015 IL App (3d) 130719 (November 2015) (prior inconsistent statement in this DUI huffing case was admitted in error) People v. Phillips, 2015 IL App (1st) 131147 (October 2015) (defendant blew under .08 and attacked that the officer’s opinion he was intoxicated) People v. Way, 2015 IL App (5th) 130096 (September 2015) (proximate cause defense, error to deny the defendant a chance to defend her aggravated DUI by arguing that the cannabis in her system did not contribute to the accident) People v. King, 2014 IL App (2d) 130461 (November 2014) (officer can testify to how defendant acted during instructions of HGN even though the results themselves not admitted) People v. O’Donnell, 2015 IL App (4th) 130358 (March 2015) (officer committed error when she testified it was her belief that Defendant was lying to her at the scene of the one car accident and that he was showing deception People v. Kathan, 2014 IL App (2d) 121335 (August 2014) (a drug driving case with an admission, bad driving and impairment leads to guilt) People v. Morris, 2014 IL App (1st) 130512 (July 2014) (actual physical control established when defendant passed out in front seat of parked car, the ignition off, the driver’s side door open, and keys in his right hand) Sentence People v. Lake, 2015 IL App (3d) 140031 (April 2015) (9 year sentence for aggravated DUI Death conviction upheld; it was not excessive; defendant was racing a horse) People v. Rennie, 2014 IL App (3d) 130014 (May 2014) (16 year olds 6 year sentence for aggravated DUI upheld she had weed in her system when motorcyclist died in an accident) People v. Stutzman, 2015 IL App (4th) 130889 (August 2015) (defendant inappropriately plead guilty to reckless homicide and aggravated DUI in violation of one act one crime principles) People v. Mischke, 2014 IL App (2d) 130318 (December 2014) (enhancement to a Class 2 felony occurs whenever a defendant has two prior convictions for any form of DUI, not just aggravated DUIs)

Judge identifies 12 huge lies about justice in America

12 widely held but largely false beliefs about criminal prosecution in America.

1. Eyewitnesses are highly reliable

Eyewitnesses are highly unreliable, especially when the witness and perpetrator are of different races, or when witnesses are asked to recall a situation in which they were under the stress of violent crime or catastrophe, Judge Kozinski writes. Mistaken eyewitness testimony was a factor in one-third of all wrongful conviction cases, according to his article.

Jed Rakoff, another well-known federal judge, made the same point in a Washington Post op-ed this year.

2. Fingerprint evidence is foolproof

Prints left in the field are often smudged and incomplete — making them difficult to identify. He adds that when tested by more rigorous scientific methods, fingerprint examiners have a significant error rate.

The National Academies of Sciences has also said the work of fingerprint examiners can be flawed.

3. Other types of forensic evidence are scientifically proven and therefore infallible

Aside from DNA evidence,  what is true about fingerprint evidence is doubly true about bloodstain-pattern identification, foot- and tire-print identification, and ballistics.

“Some fields of forensic expertise are built on nothing but guesswork and false common sense,” Kozinski writes.

Recently, the Justice Department exposed major problems with microscopic hair testing in criminal cases.

4. DNA evidence is infallible

Kozinski says the integrity of DNA evidence is often compromised during the collection, preservation, and testing process, and that DNA examiners are not always competent and honest.

As Mother Jones noted in April, “Real-life crime labs are a total mess.”

crime sceneBill Pugliano/Getty Images

5. Human memories are reliable

Kozinski, citing a study by cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, believes the mind not only distorts and embellishes memories, but that external factors affect how memories are recalled and described.

In an interview with Slate, Loftus acknowledged that we’re all capable of fabricating memories.

“We all have memories that are malleable and susceptible to being contaminated or supplemented in some way,” Loftus told Slate.

6. Confessions are infallible because innocent people never confess

Kozinski has found that innocent people confess surprisingly often, due to a variety of factors including interrogation tactics, Stockholm syndrome, emotional or financial exhaustion, family considerations, and general feeble-mindedness.

As The New Yorker has reported, police can also produce false confessions by using a certain interrogation technique.

7. Juries follow instructions

Kozinski claims courts know very little of what juries do when they decide cases. Courts have no way of knowing whether juries follow instructions or even whether they understand them, according to Kozinski.

“We have no convincing reason to believe that jury instructions in fact constrain jury behavior in all or even most cases,” Kozinski writes.

8. Prosecutors play fair

Kozinski believes prosecutors often fail to turn over evidence that could be favorable to the defense, known as exculpatory evidence. In a case called Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors have to turn over that evidence. But Kozinski claims there’s an “epidemic” of Brady violations in America.

9. The prosecution is at a substantial disadvantage because it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

In reality, Kozinski writes, the defendant is often at a disadvantage because prosecutors have the chance to argue their case before the defense during a trial.

That’s troubling because of psychological evidence showing that “whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later,” according to Kozinski.

10. Police are objective in their investigations

Kozinski says police have the opportunity to alter or remove evidence, influence witnesses, extract confessions, and more or less lead an investigation in such a way that they can stack the deck against somebody they believe should be convicted.

“There are countless documented cases where innocent people have spent decades behind bars because the police manipulated or concealed evidence,” Kozinski writes.

11. Guilty pleas are conclusive proof of guilt

Kozinski has found that when a defendant believes an outcome is highly uncertain or stacked against them, they might cave and enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge so that they can still salvage a part of their life.

Judge Jed Rakoff has also lamented the fact that 97% of federal criminal defendants plead guilty if their cases aren’t dismissed.

12. Long sentences deter crime

America has 716 prisoners for every 100,000 people — the most of any country in the world, Kozinski notes. America also has much longer sentences than other countries for comparable crimes. Kozinski points out that a burglary charge in the US warrants an average of 16 months in prison, compared with five months in Canada and seven months in England.

“As with much else in the law, the connection between punishment and deterrence remains mysterious,” Kozinski writes. “We make our decisions based on faith.”