Blurred

It's also another thing that we're seeing on this court more generally; it's a pretty anti-defendant stance, rulings that are not helpful for criminal defendants in the federal system. And, again, that's sort of part of a longer trajectory: there was a short period in the 60s where there were all these rulings expanding criminals', um, or criminal defendants' rights, and we've gone in the other direction since then. Um, and this is just another way that this court is like really, going even more in, in the direction of, um, ruling against defendants.
Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, Politics Podcast: How The Supreme Court Will Shape The 2024 Election. FiveThirtyEight.com.

As is my habit, I've quoted a bit from the podcast, to ensure that I pulled all of the context, but what stood out for me was Ms. Thomson-DeVeaux's stumble over "criminals'" vs. "criminal defendants'," rights. In part, because I think it provides a good explanation for the phenomenon she describes. For all that the justice system is supposed to operate under a presumption of innocence up to at least the point where a person is convicted of a crime, it's more accurate to presume that it often operates under a presumption of guilt. This is partly because in a system as large as that of the United States, presuming that people who enter the system are guilty, and pushing to formalize that presumption with a conviction as quickly as possible, is a matter of efficiency. There simply aren't enough courts for every defendant to have full jury trials; accordingly, the system would be hopelessly backlogged (similarly to American immigration courts) were every defendant to avail themselves of their rights. Part of it is a certain confidence that the the American justice system is (despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary) knowledgeable and competent enough to only intake those people who are actually guilty of the crimes for which they are being pursued. Part of it is ignorance of the fact that there are numerous places where the system may choose to, or choose not to, exercise discretion. And part of it is the believe that once a person is convicted of certain acts, they'll simply always be a criminal.

That last part is important. Contact with the criminal justice system tends to snowball, as people with arrest records, even for relatively minor offenses, can quickly find that it's difficult to find work or housing, which tends to incentive criminal behavior as a means of survival. The sort of pretty street crime that straited people tend to engage in also happens to be precisely the sort of crime that most frightens people. And while there are federal defendants in prisons for white-collar crimes or violations of the public trust, a lot of them are there because the offenses they are charged with are part of the amorphous idea of crime that underpins people's fears.

And so, even when someone is considered innocent until proven guilty of the crime[s] for which they are being tried, their prior history lands them squarely in the category of "criminal" in the minds of many. And there is a large constituency for the idea that "criminals" should have, if not no rights, as few as can be managed. And for all that there is an impression that judges are somehow a superior class of people who are somehow above the prejudices of the public at large, they are drawn from that very public. To the degree that the public conflates criminal defendants with criminals, it's going to have an effect on the judiciary; even at the highest levels.

In the end, I suspect that there will have to be a greater need for human capital for things to change. Right now, warm bodies are easy to find when needed. And as with any resource glut, it's easy to overlook people who fall short of some or another standard when there are plenty more where they came from who will do. That the United States is large enough that the nearly 160,000 people currently in federal custody (about half of whom for drug use offenses) are effectively not missed by the labor force means that there isn't much incentive to get people out of prison so that they can be doing productive work. And if they are released, that same lack of economic incentive to employ them means that they have few options that will keep them away from the circumstances, people and behaviors that got them into trouble in the first place. And if they end up being defendants again, they're likely to find the courts, like the public, have little sympathy for them, having decided that they know all they need to.