If he is guilty of this horrific crime, 19 years is not enough. Let him share a cell with Sirhah Sirhan or Charles Manson. If he is innocent, it is a tragedy that he got convicted, not that he didn't do a plea deal.
10
"Mr. Syed’s attorney died in 2004, three years after being disbarred, before she could address this claim." His lawyer was disbarred from practicing law in that state? Wow. A lawyer has to knowingly do something very criminal to lose their license to practice law. This alone ought to give Syed another trial by the judicial system. That fact plus the one that states Syeds lawyer claims the prosecution never offered an opportunity for him to plead out?! I never heard of a prosecutor who wouldn't want to guarantee themselves a conviction by making an offer of a plea. Syed deserves proper representation. Give him another trial.
9
Why do I suspect that the family and friends of Hae Min Lee are not as upset as this writer with the sentence for Adnan Syed?
There are two obvious results of ubiquitous plea bargaining in our criminal courts. First, a fair number of people innocent of the crime they are accused of are sent to prison in place of the guilty party. Second, career criminals obtain lighter sentences then they deserve.
The punishment of this unfortunate young hothead is no doubt excessive. But it is the price we pay to convince seasoned criminals that they are better off copping a plea.
To correct the problems we have created will only be possible if we correctly address the two underlying problems of erroneous convictions and professional criminals playing the system.
There are two obvious results of ubiquitous plea bargaining in our criminal courts. First, a fair number of people innocent of the crime they are accused of are sent to prison in place of the guilty party. Second, career criminals obtain lighter sentences then they deserve.
The punishment of this unfortunate young hothead is no doubt excessive. But it is the price we pay to convince seasoned criminals that they are better off copping a plea.
To correct the problems we have created will only be possible if we correctly address the two underlying problems of erroneous convictions and professional criminals playing the system.
2
I Shouldn't the solution be to eliminate the trial penalty rather than make plea bargaining more transparent?
4
If he is guilty, the outcome is not, as you suggest "troubling." It is insufficient. A young innocent woman was murdered in the prime of her life. Pretty sure if it was a family member of yours the outcome would only be troubling in that her killer gets to live and even see freedom someday.
13
Wrong. The injustice was done to Ms Lee and no one else. Ms Murray should be ashamed of herself. Asian women's lives matter.
11
In an ideal world, there's no crime. In the real world, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Although, in the "real" real world a person should plea guilty to hopefully spend less time in jail. It sounds like people in the "real" real world can do better.
2
You're kidding me, right? Some loose charge that he didn't do it without any explanation of the evidence. He was young so should not "go up the river" too long. He should have plead guilty and gotten a lesser sentence. You failed to say what was offered. Oh, and yea, strangulation and kidnapping is not premeditated? "Run of the mill domestic violence murder", how did you get this one past the editors, offensive and just wrong. alan
15
"...he might have been able to earn his freedom by age 40". But if he is guilty, why would we want him to earn his freedom sooner? This article seems to carry a sympathy for Adnan Syed that I find strange. Undoubtedly because we have spent hours in Ms Koenig's company, hearing his story (and sporadically the man himself), we've become fond of him and mindful of his humanity and vulnerability. But let's not forget many people, guilty and innocent, would seem equally human and sympathetic if given equal radio time. The only potential tragedy here is if Syed is innocent; if he's guilty, there is no reason for us to wish him a sooner release. After all, the suffering of the victim and her loved ones is eternal.
19
As long as our prisons are private businesses, and there is a huge financial incentive to fill them with convicts, we will never have a fair, or even decent, penalty system.
We have a uniquely inhumane approach to people who break the law: appalling and dehumanizing conditions in prison that are bound to make offenders more violent and more angry with their society; grotesquely long sentences for drug convictions; putting federal convicts in prisons far away from their families, even in a different state, thereby destroying the emotional support system that might help rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated (i.e. those who are not psychopaths); keeping criminal convictions on someone's record for the rest of their life, so if they commit a foolish crime at 18, they will pay for it forever with a lack of housing and employment opportunities, not to mention a reduced pool of partners willing to marry them and be linked forever to someone whose record will keep them from good jobs. Records should be 'cleared' after a number of years, if the crime was not violent/sexual, the same way a bankruptcy falls off a credit report after a time.
Not to mention the irrational trend of everyone wanting to be "tough on crime" when crime is at its lowest in five decades.
Why must we insist on remaining the most inhumane and irrational of all advanced societies? Where are the enlightened voices in our government? Where are those Founding Fathers when you need them?
We have a uniquely inhumane approach to people who break the law: appalling and dehumanizing conditions in prison that are bound to make offenders more violent and more angry with their society; grotesquely long sentences for drug convictions; putting federal convicts in prisons far away from their families, even in a different state, thereby destroying the emotional support system that might help rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated (i.e. those who are not psychopaths); keeping criminal convictions on someone's record for the rest of their life, so if they commit a foolish crime at 18, they will pay for it forever with a lack of housing and employment opportunities, not to mention a reduced pool of partners willing to marry them and be linked forever to someone whose record will keep them from good jobs. Records should be 'cleared' after a number of years, if the crime was not violent/sexual, the same way a bankruptcy falls off a credit report after a time.
Not to mention the irrational trend of everyone wanting to be "tough on crime" when crime is at its lowest in five decades.
Why must we insist on remaining the most inhumane and irrational of all advanced societies? Where are the enlightened voices in our government? Where are those Founding Fathers when you need them?
30
The fact the article mentions that we have here a "system of pleas" shows the total absence of Justice in the way "convictions" are reached in courts of the USA - an absence of principles any law of the civilized world would understand as indispensable:
A. the court is reduced to a 'Sentence Automate' fed in facts -or enforced statements, testimony purchased or coerced,- - and often omitting parts of real factual evidence which would make the outcome desired by the prosecutor [in view of his/her re-election] unlikely.
B. the outcome rest in one person alone, the prosecutor/D.A. who is the one who decides the case, instead of Jury and Judge.
C. as said above: methods to reach a desired outcome promote a tendency to present "malleable evidence" - the use of "confession witnesses" is one of the most malleable, as the witness may often be the actual primary culprit, blaming a secondar, tertiary, or innocent one.
D. the power of D.A.s of deciding post sentence execution of sentences in terms of which level of prisons, privileges (or none), pressure, rewards for "testimonies", early release, material rewards, etc, etc, make the system also very prone to convictions and sentencing by corruption;
E. the dependency of prosecutors in particular on elections puts them under pressure, not for truth but for "success";
F. this is known to have led even to innocent persons being executed!
In short: This system is wrong, from top to bottom.
To call it a "system of justice" is an insult!
A. the court is reduced to a 'Sentence Automate' fed in facts -or enforced statements, testimony purchased or coerced,- - and often omitting parts of real factual evidence which would make the outcome desired by the prosecutor [in view of his/her re-election] unlikely.
B. the outcome rest in one person alone, the prosecutor/D.A. who is the one who decides the case, instead of Jury and Judge.
C. as said above: methods to reach a desired outcome promote a tendency to present "malleable evidence" - the use of "confession witnesses" is one of the most malleable, as the witness may often be the actual primary culprit, blaming a secondar, tertiary, or innocent one.
D. the power of D.A.s of deciding post sentence execution of sentences in terms of which level of prisons, privileges (or none), pressure, rewards for "testimonies", early release, material rewards, etc, etc, make the system also very prone to convictions and sentencing by corruption;
E. the dependency of prosecutors in particular on elections puts them under pressure, not for truth but for "success";
F. this is known to have led even to innocent persons being executed!
In short: This system is wrong, from top to bottom.
To call it a "system of justice" is an insult!
6
I think the article was mistitled. The author is not arguing that Adnan should have pleaded guilty, but rather that the plea-bargaining system that currently dominates the criminal justice system should be subject to some guidelines, procedures and oversight to ensure that defendants have a better understanding of their options, and the potential consequences of going to trial. Whether Adnan is innocent or guilty (and only he and the victim know the truth), his choice to go to trial should have been fully informed, and his option to agree to a plea deal should have been fully explored. In a system where there is a significant disproportionality between plea sentences and trial sentences, at least put the defendant (particularly a young defendant) in a position to understand the consequences of his choices. There is much to be corrected in our criminal justice system, but I believe that this author has hit on one deficiency that can and should be rectified.
3
Just lovely ow this writer laments that a muderder is serving too long a sentence. Las I looked his victim was serving a life sentence. Only a cold blooeded uncaring person could write such an article without once mentioning how the family of the victim would feel about the murderer getitng out a relatively young man.
10
Most prisons are full of "innocent" prisoners-just ask them.
I practiced on both the prosecution and defense sides of the criminal system. I have found that more prosecutors are now stacking on all kinds of charges just to try to get a plea out a defendant. They assume that the defendant will plead to what he or she actually did and the stacked on charges will be dismissed. I believe this over-charging is unconscionable. Charge a defendant with what he or she actually did or is alleged to have done.
I do not like the idea of judges in the plea bargaining process. A formalized proceeding like that requires the defendant's presence and would be a bar to freely discussing the state of the case both from a prosecutorial and defense standpoint. A defense attorney is obligated to attempt a plea bargain, but having a judge there and the defendant there would limit the ability of the prosecution and defense to openly and honestly discuss the case.
That said, most prosecutors have the same plea system for most crimes. A defense attorney can go to their client with an idea of what the plea will look like before bargaining begins. I never bargained a case without the permission of my client and a bargain was always subject to the defendant accepting the bargain. I also explained the defendant's chances should the case go to jury trial.
If Syed's attorney did not follow the rules and did not use the generally accepted plea bargain practice, her defense fell below legal standards.
I practiced on both the prosecution and defense sides of the criminal system. I have found that more prosecutors are now stacking on all kinds of charges just to try to get a plea out a defendant. They assume that the defendant will plead to what he or she actually did and the stacked on charges will be dismissed. I believe this over-charging is unconscionable. Charge a defendant with what he or she actually did or is alleged to have done.
I do not like the idea of judges in the plea bargaining process. A formalized proceeding like that requires the defendant's presence and would be a bar to freely discussing the state of the case both from a prosecutorial and defense standpoint. A defense attorney is obligated to attempt a plea bargain, but having a judge there and the defendant there would limit the ability of the prosecution and defense to openly and honestly discuss the case.
That said, most prosecutors have the same plea system for most crimes. A defense attorney can go to their client with an idea of what the plea will look like before bargaining begins. I never bargained a case without the permission of my client and a bargain was always subject to the defendant accepting the bargain. I also explained the defendant's chances should the case go to jury trial.
If Syed's attorney did not follow the rules and did not use the generally accepted plea bargain practice, her defense fell below legal standards.
19
The travesty is that most murderers get off so lightly. When one intentionally takes a life, one should get the death penalty, or at least true life imprisonment with no chance at parole. I feel far more sympathy with the victim and her family here than for the killer.
6
Strangulation, however, is not typically associated with premeditation,
----------------------------
Says who? Many reality crime shows on TV show strangulation as the preferred method for its utterly personal, and face to face, horror. First-degree murderers, especially husbands killing wives with "malice aforethought," seem to relish it. The female corollary to strangulation is poisoning, another face to face method of murder.
----------------------------
Says who? Many reality crime shows on TV show strangulation as the preferred method for its utterly personal, and face to face, horror. First-degree murderers, especially husbands killing wives with "malice aforethought," seem to relish it. The female corollary to strangulation is poisoning, another face to face method of murder.
3
No one, under any circumstance, should plead guilty to something they are innocent of.
8
Prof. Murray has some interesting ideas about plea bargaining but they have NOTHING to do with the Syed case. Syed and his defense have at all times maintained that he is completely innocent. Plea bargaining requires an admission of guilt, so Adnan would have had to perjure himself (and spend 20 years in jail for something he did not do) in order to take a plea bargain. So the defense and Adnan at all times refused to discuss a plea bargain. A plea bargain would not have been the right thing to do, unless Adnan was really guilty of something, but those who have listened to Serial know that he is perfectly innocent, right?
1
I would like to know how bad the US problem is compared with European countries. The latter has certain features which may better serve the cause of justice: 1) No pleas. Every case goes to trial. 2) No litigation over evidence. An Investigative Judge directs the police investigation and all evidence is the property of the court. The IJ is in charge of compiling a dossier of the evidence to which both prosecution and defense have access. He, not prosecutor, also decides if the case goes to trial. 3) Defendant is usually the first witness at trial. 4) Most of the questioning is done by a panel of judges who have previously studied the dossier. 5) Lawyers for both the prosecution and defense as well as jurors, defendant and family members of victim can raise their hand to ask individual questions. No formal direct and cross examination. 6) Decision made by judges and jurors (if they system uses them, like in France) together.
6
The part of the story where Syed says he asked for a plea bargain but still denies guilt is troublesome. I do criminal work and represent persons who try to attack their convictions alleging their attorneys were incompetent, and I cannot think of a single case where a client who was completely innocent asked unsolicited what the prosecution was offering. A good criminal attorney though will always explore the possibility of a plea and if a bargain can be had, present it to the client. That being said, I do not know of any caselaw that says an attorney can be faulted for not asking for a plea bargain for a client who unequivocally claims innocence. I have been fired by at least one client claiming innocence after presenting him with the unsolicited possibility of a plea. In other words, don't blame the system— in the end you are dealing with officials and parties and victims who are people with all the faults and foibles we all carry. No system will be perfect.
5
"... In an ideal world, the primacy of the jury trial should be reinstated. Prosecute fewer people, incarcerate less often, remove the trial penalty by repealing mandatory sentencing regimes. Until then, however, we have an obligation to bring transparency and independent review to the plea-bargaining processes that decide, for the most part, who ends up in our prisons, and for how long..."
___
Could, would, should.... Should, would, could.
___
Could, would, should.... Should, would, could.
2
My conclusions after listening to ALL of Serial: 1. He probably did it. 2. I wish I could have that time back. 3. They should create an entertainment category "Highbrow Tabloid."
9
Not a lawyer here, but I haven't seen in the article nor in the comments any mention of the possibility of an Alford plea.
An Alford plea is a plea wherein the defendant can maintain his innocence and at the same time acknowledge that there is enough evidence to convict him of the crime.
I won't say it is a win-win situation but it is an alternative, sometimes.
An Alford plea is a plea wherein the defendant can maintain his innocence and at the same time acknowledge that there is enough evidence to convict him of the crime.
I won't say it is a win-win situation but it is an alternative, sometimes.
4
This opinion is a good one if (1) Sayed knew his lawyer was going to blow his case and (2) if he actually committed the crime. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. There are countless lawyers who could have gotten an acquittal.
Sayed's defense can be boiled-down to three elements. First, establish the alibi (Asia McClain saw Sayed in the school library around the time the state argues that Sayed killed Lee). Second, discredit the state's only witness. Third, discredit the state's crime timeline. This should have been a slam dunk defense.
Sayed's defense can be boiled-down to three elements. First, establish the alibi (Asia McClain saw Sayed in the school library around the time the state argues that Sayed killed Lee). Second, discredit the state's only witness. Third, discredit the state's crime timeline. This should have been a slam dunk defense.
10
Adnan himself acknowledges the truth of this in the last few episodes when he reveals that this is the counsel he gives to young defendants being charged for a crime they did not commit, you must plead out or face a lengthy sentence; very few defendants win at trial.
With Serial, Sarah Koenig has brought attention to a major injustice in our country: the entire system is designed to maximize incarceration. While it may be that public defenders yield lower average sentences than private defenders, we cannot weigh these statistics against actual guilt or innocence because the system is too broken to know how many impoverished defendants pled guilty knowing they had no chance before a jury. Mandatory minimums guarantee a trial penalty and make justice inaccessible for many of the unjustly accused. The inability for private defense attorneys to yield lower sentences is not a insult to the defenders themselves who offer their clients a slim chance at justice, it's a travesty of our justice system that makes true justice inaccessible to many.
Also, a correction: Jay was not a current "classmate" he was an older associate with loose ties to several parties who may have actually been guilty of this crime. His ties to Adnan are thin as well, and he had a reputation as a habitual liar. There is plenty of "reasonable doubt" in this case, despite the judge's grotesque confidence when the verdict and sentence were issued.
With Serial, Sarah Koenig has brought attention to a major injustice in our country: the entire system is designed to maximize incarceration. While it may be that public defenders yield lower average sentences than private defenders, we cannot weigh these statistics against actual guilt or innocence because the system is too broken to know how many impoverished defendants pled guilty knowing they had no chance before a jury. Mandatory minimums guarantee a trial penalty and make justice inaccessible for many of the unjustly accused. The inability for private defense attorneys to yield lower sentences is not a insult to the defenders themselves who offer their clients a slim chance at justice, it's a travesty of our justice system that makes true justice inaccessible to many.
Also, a correction: Jay was not a current "classmate" he was an older associate with loose ties to several parties who may have actually been guilty of this crime. His ties to Adnan are thin as well, and he had a reputation as a habitual liar. There is plenty of "reasonable doubt" in this case, despite the judge's grotesque confidence when the verdict and sentence were issued.
7
Everyone seems to be missing the part of the article where the author states that Syed says that he *asked* his attorney twice to get a plea deal and is accusing her of ineffective assistance of counsel for *failing* to ask the prosecutor for one.
As an attorney, I can tell you that it doesn't matter in hindsight what you think the jurors should or shouldn't have done. A jury of 12 found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You weren't on that jury, so it doesn't matter what you think after hearing Serial (and not being at the trial). And the jurors Koening spoke to were unanimous in conveying that they believed Jay wholeheartedly.
As an attorney, I can tell you that it doesn't matter in hindsight what you think the jurors should or shouldn't have done. A jury of 12 found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You weren't on that jury, so it doesn't matter what you think after hearing Serial (and not being at the trial). And the jurors Koening spoke to were unanimous in conveying that they believed Jay wholeheartedly.
8
While I do not know the truth here in this case, and perhaps only one person does, the defendant -- I do know that if you ask 100% of the people in prison if they are guilty or innocent, I am betting that almost all will say they were innocent -- as that's what they plead.
7
Sometimes I am confused about what the NYTimes and readers want. On the one hand, we read articles where the defendant is urged to cop a plea; we are told that is unfair when the defendant claims to be innocent. Which rarely happens, right? Wrong. 99% claim to be innocent.
Then I read here that it was unfair that this defendant wasn't offered a plea deal. Either because of his lawyer, implied here. Or because it's not fair that he was sentenced to life + 30 years while the average murderer only gets 19 years.
I'd like to see murderers held for a long period of time, but do believe that the circumstances matter. If a 'fit of rage' results in a murder, not premeditated, I'd expect the judge to be more lenient. If a murder is premeditated, as this one was, I'd think the judge would be harsh. And, rightfully so.
But we've many plea deals in this country where a murderer gets 10-20 and is out in 3-5. Then murders again. Happens all the time - most in jail have long lists of criminal arrests and convictions. Why are they released so early? I don't pretend to believe that jail time rehabilitates one, but I also don't believe that repeat violent offenders should be released on the public.
We need more 'scared straight' programs for young offenders to try to change their path, but 17 is too late when a violent crime like this occurs. Sadly.
Maybe the Broken Windows theory has some merit?
Then I read here that it was unfair that this defendant wasn't offered a plea deal. Either because of his lawyer, implied here. Or because it's not fair that he was sentenced to life + 30 years while the average murderer only gets 19 years.
I'd like to see murderers held for a long period of time, but do believe that the circumstances matter. If a 'fit of rage' results in a murder, not premeditated, I'd expect the judge to be more lenient. If a murder is premeditated, as this one was, I'd think the judge would be harsh. And, rightfully so.
But we've many plea deals in this country where a murderer gets 10-20 and is out in 3-5. Then murders again. Happens all the time - most in jail have long lists of criminal arrests and convictions. Why are they released so early? I don't pretend to believe that jail time rehabilitates one, but I also don't believe that repeat violent offenders should be released on the public.
We need more 'scared straight' programs for young offenders to try to change their path, but 17 is too late when a violent crime like this occurs. Sadly.
Maybe the Broken Windows theory has some merit?
5
"But we've many plea deals in this country where a murderer gets 10-20 and is out in 3-5. Then murders again. Happens all the time..."
Sources, please.
Sources, please.
4
Nonsense. The bad judgment many young people have at 17 rarely includes murder. While Syed may not have premeditated the murder he committed, it takes a little time to strangle someone--enough time to come to one's senses as the victim struggles for life.
Mr. Syed will have--does have--many opportunities in prison to in some way contribute something positive to his, or to fellow inmates' lives. Our justice system should require this--not just the serving of time without getting into trouble while incarcerated. He no longer deserves a life as a free person, and it is a mockery of the idea of justice that the mere passage of years earns someone freedom after the taking of a life. One chooses to kill, and destroys the family of the victim forever, and that cannot be rectified. Let Mr. Syed make some sort of meaningful life for himself now, or not. But he does not deserve the baffling and misdirected compassion expressed in this opinion piece.
Mr. Syed will have--does have--many opportunities in prison to in some way contribute something positive to his, or to fellow inmates' lives. Our justice system should require this--not just the serving of time without getting into trouble while incarcerated. He no longer deserves a life as a free person, and it is a mockery of the idea of justice that the mere passage of years earns someone freedom after the taking of a life. One chooses to kill, and destroys the family of the victim forever, and that cannot be rectified. Let Mr. Syed make some sort of meaningful life for himself now, or not. But he does not deserve the baffling and misdirected compassion expressed in this opinion piece.
10
The whole system needs realignment. Some of the results of plea bargaining are innocent people pleading guilty because they could be found guilty and want a lesser penalty and one can receive a greater penalty for exercising their right to a trial.
3
Syed chose to not plead guilty to crimes charged, but to assert his innocence to those crimes; thereby forcing a trial, whose burden of proof was set at, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The pros of this were, (1) the highest standard of proof was needed for a conviction, (2) the right to appeal if convicted was guaranteed; and, (3) there was immunity from future prosecution (even if he were in fact guilty of the charges) if the State failed to establish his guilt (in this particular trial), by a unanimous jury verdict. This case is simply an occasion where the defendant over valued (1) and (3); given his actual guilt of the crimes charged. He now reasons that he should have chosen a guilty plea (i.e. plea in lieu of trial), saving the state time and money, and in justice (before the court) recognized his guilt.
But that was a decision for the Syed alone to make; and it is a (physically/mentally) competent defendant’s decision to make, which; “after the fact”; may be regarded as not having been the “best” or “optimal” decision in hindsight, but that reality while genuine and true; is irrelevant to an attempt to assert that the choice of a “not optimum decision”; is tangible, factual evidence that inadequate assistance of counsel existed. In simple terms the horse he competently and knowingly bet on, just lost.
But that was a decision for the Syed alone to make; and it is a (physically/mentally) competent defendant’s decision to make, which; “after the fact”; may be regarded as not having been the “best” or “optimal” decision in hindsight, but that reality while genuine and true; is irrelevant to an attempt to assert that the choice of a “not optimum decision”; is tangible, factual evidence that inadequate assistance of counsel existed. In simple terms the horse he competently and knowingly bet on, just lost.
8
The criminal justice system owes duties not only to those that are criminals but to the victims and to society as a whole. This wasn't a conviction for robbery with an unduly harsh sentence. Nor was it a business dispute or a traffic ticket. A human life was taken. Now the convicted person is seeking some form of mercy? And now the convicted person ties up judicial and other resources to cut a better deal? Sorry, I just can't bring myself to be sympathetic.
9
"First-degree murder under Maryland law, for a case like Mr. Syed’s, requires that a killing be premeditated or the result of the commission of a felony... Strangulation, however, is not typically associated with premeditation."
Another way in which the murders of women are excused and trivialized. He was "distraught"! He "just snapped"! It was a "crime of passion"! When in fact, domestic violence murders are usually the culmination of a calculated process of abuse and control.
Another way in which the murders of women are excused and trivialized. He was "distraught"! He "just snapped"! It was a "crime of passion"! When in fact, domestic violence murders are usually the culmination of a calculated process of abuse and control.
14
The fact that you may get a longer sentence if you roll the dice and go to trial is an intentional feature of the system. This is what gives the defendant an incentive to plea bargain and spares the state the expense and uncertainty of a trial. You can't go to trial aiming for an acquittal and then get the lower, plea bargained sentence when you are convicted.
I find it hard to believe that Adnan's (now dead and unable to defend herself) attorney was requested by Adnan to seek a plea bargain but failed to convey this request to the prosecutor. I see no reasons to accept the word of a convicted felon seeking to free himself on this. He has every incentive to lie.
I find it hard to believe that Adnan's (now dead and unable to defend herself) attorney was requested by Adnan to seek a plea bargain but failed to convey this request to the prosecutor. I see no reasons to accept the word of a convicted felon seeking to free himself on this. He has every incentive to lie.
9
The DA also said that defense attorney did not seek a plea bargain. So he's actually not lying.
3
Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, NYR Nov. 20, 2014 - Judge Jed S. Rakoff and the letters section NYR Jan. 8, 2015.
5
Ms. Murray makes good points, but chose the wrong case to illustrate them. If Sayed is innocent, a plea bargain would have been dishonest. If, however, he is guilty of the crime as presented by prosecutors -- i.e., he planned and committed the murder in a manner as cold-blooded as can be imagined (he was convicted of plotting the girl's murder for at least a day in advance, then carried it out without mercy) -- then any agreement that would have him on the streets by age 40 would be an unthinkable injustice.
6
Maybe he didn't plead guilty because he didn't do it. I wouldn't have plead guilty, if I didn't do it. I would have had faith in the justice system.
Which, as we all know, is entirely naïve. But I would have.
If I were Adnan Syed, I wouldn't have plead guilty, either.
Which, as we all know, is entirely naïve. But I would have.
If I were Adnan Syed, I wouldn't have plead guilty, either.
10
It seems Syed's atty was impaired- leading to many errors. The unusual accommodations Jay received from the prosecution also suggested an area of doubt regarding his testimony. If Jay were lying- what would be a motive ? Only a deal with the cops makes sense. The pressure to 'close' a case can motivate rationalized tampering (see: OJ).
6
It is beyond me why we don't put all 1st degree murderers to death. That should be the price for planing and killing another person in cold blood.
Maybe you could give them a few months in a cell to prepare for their own death. But keeping someone locked up for 40 years seems like a worse fate, and certainly a waste of resources that would be better spent on the non-murderous members of our society.
Maybe you could give them a few months in a cell to prepare for their own death. But keeping someone locked up for 40 years seems like a worse fate, and certainly a waste of resources that would be better spent on the non-murderous members of our society.
1
Justice is just another business, and not the outcome of an fair and honest process. Only the rich or risk obsessed can stand against the full force of an interlocking, interdependent system of institutions that is funded by the state treasury. The police feed the courts, the courts feed the prisons where convicts with no hope of gainful employment become hardened criminals, after which they eventually reconnect with the police and maintain the cycle. While I'm not familiar with the Syed case, I've seen cases of people being charged with serious crimes based on no physical evidence. Once charged, even those with some money are quickly compelled to plead. Crime rates have fallen yet these institutions remain and like all institutions they will do whatever is necessary to preserve themselves and maintain utilization. The layering of charges by prosecutors to increase the aggregate risk to the accused is a powerful deterrent to trial that compels capitulation. What average, honest person would risk all of their assets and family's economic security funding a trial that can require $100k or more in cash? It's a bad bet. Better to save the money, take the plea deal and hope that your family can hang on while you are away.
As a child, a civics teacher explained to me a concept that it was better for a guilty person to go unpunished than for an innocent person to suffer unjustly. Like many things we learn as children, this has nothing to do with reality.
As a child, a civics teacher explained to me a concept that it was better for a guilty person to go unpunished than for an innocent person to suffer unjustly. Like many things we learn as children, this has nothing to do with reality.
7
Remember when our schools taught civics as a separate course? We need it again, and for always.
4
Cell-tower pings? An accomplice's testimony? The accomplice an admitted liar, his version ever-changing, ever-shifting? The state's case was ridiculously weak. The greater failure of the system was that he was charged at all. Once charged, he faced jurors who presumed his guilt as jurors are wont to do.
Your suggestion Syed should have lied and pled guilty is immoral.
Your suggestion Syed should have lied and pled guilty is immoral.
48
And yet again, the NY Times comes to the aid and comfort of a convicted murderer!
There are many-many victims who would like and need a voice too!
There are many-many victims who would like and need a voice too!
11
I have read many articles that were featured in The New York Times that gave victims exactly that, a voice. So Matt are you really that upset over this story or do you just have a vendetta against the New York Times because in your mind it's too liberal?
8
What if he didn't do it Matt? Inform yourself before you blast the NYT for giving "aid and comfort" (though that's not actually what the writer of this piece is doing) to someone who, for all you know, is completely innocent.
8
This article is so profoundly wrong, excusing the most brutal of all murders, do you know how long it takes to strangle? To argue that because others get away lightly so should he? The evidence was overwhelming in this case. Why do you assume that Matt is going after the NYT because its too liberal? We call that an ad hominem attack, look it up.
3
I don't think he did it. His buddy was blatantly hiding something. He was really their only evidence for murder. I think it was the construction worker who "found' her.
5
There seem to be quite a few comments from people who have not listened to Serial. Before jumping to conclusions, I highly recommend listening to the podcast - it is very well done, and, I thought, quite a balanced appraisal of this case.
One thing not mentioned in this article that relates to plea bargaining: the "classmate" who testified against Mr. Syed had given his testimony in return for his own plea bargain. Since he was admittedly guilty of accessory to murder by burying the body, jurors assumed that he must be telling the truth - they thought that by coming forward with his testimony he was sending himself to prison, and only an honest person would do that. They did not know that his plea bargain got him off with no prison time. What is the chance that he perjured himself in return for this plea? Would the jury have thought differently about his testimony if they knew about his plea? He was a suspect in the murder and there are many holes in the story he told.
One thing not mentioned in this article that relates to plea bargaining: the "classmate" who testified against Mr. Syed had given his testimony in return for his own plea bargain. Since he was admittedly guilty of accessory to murder by burying the body, jurors assumed that he must be telling the truth - they thought that by coming forward with his testimony he was sending himself to prison, and only an honest person would do that. They did not know that his plea bargain got him off with no prison time. What is the chance that he perjured himself in return for this plea? Would the jury have thought differently about his testimony if they knew about his plea? He was a suspect in the murder and there are many holes in the story he told.
58
the prosecutor also found him a lawyer to negotiate his plea deal pro bono. The credibility of Jay as a witness was very poor. I don't know if Adnan did it or not. But i do know there is mountains of reasonable doubt and there is way the jury should have convicted him, especially in two hours
11
I would rather not have a convicted murderer on our public streets if I get a choice.
26
I think you are confusing convicted with "guilty". They are not always the same thing.
On the topic of the article I;d bet money that something north of 50% of the People who make a plea deal are actually innocent but to fight that out it would bankrupt them and often keep them in jail for years.
On the topic of the article I;d bet money that something north of 50% of the People who make a plea deal are actually innocent but to fight that out it would bankrupt them and often keep them in jail for years.
12
A "convicted murderer" is not necessarily "one who has committed murder", perhaps your inclinations would be better aligned with your interests if you chose the latter criteria.
5
I would rather 20 guilty go free, than have one innocent in prison. And my family has been touched by violent crime - in 1988 in Houston Texas, my stepbrother was beaten to death during morning rush-hour traffic. The man who killed him, was already on parole for Assault w/Deadly Weapon. He was found, prosecuted, and given 25 years. The "Drug War" was at its height, and Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice was giving 3:1 in those days, to help remedy over-crowding. So the man who killed my brother was eligible for parole after only about four years (credit for "good behavior").
Thankfully, my stepsisters conducted a letter-writing campaign, and our brother's killer was kept behind bars a little longer.
But he's out now, I guess..... and he walks among us. I don't really know where he is, or even if he's still alive. I guess he is; I haven't heard otherwise.
Being the member of a family touched by (very) violent crime doesn't make me some kind of expert or anything.
But when you take a look at the number of years left in an individual's life after their time is served - what are we going to do with them all??
Thankfully, my stepsisters conducted a letter-writing campaign, and our brother's killer was kept behind bars a little longer.
But he's out now, I guess..... and he walks among us. I don't really know where he is, or even if he's still alive. I guess he is; I haven't heard otherwise.
Being the member of a family touched by (very) violent crime doesn't make me some kind of expert or anything.
But when you take a look at the number of years left in an individual's life after their time is served - what are we going to do with them all??
31
If you strangle anyone except in self-defense, you deserve execution. If you are innocent, you shouldn't do a nanosecond of time.
2
All these touchy-feely statements annoy me. Murder is murder, whether it is premeditated or not. Please spare me all the legalese emanating from the Courts - why do we have to protect a murderer, who took the life of a young girl?
Does it really matter if the murderer is of a specific age? There is zero mercy when a life is taken so just think about it if it was you sister and then try a little mercy? It doesn't work.
Does it really matter if the murderer is of a specific age? There is zero mercy when a life is taken so just think about it if it was you sister and then try a little mercy? It doesn't work.
5
Really? Should a 10-year-old who accidentally shoots someone with a relative's gun serve life in prison? Should a woman who murders her abusive partner get the death penalty? How about someone behind the wheel of a car, who spins out of control in a rainstorm and kills another driver?
This perspective is frightening; at least to me.
This perspective is frightening; at least to me.
17
And what if the person charged and convicted did not commit the murder? Just kill them anyway? What if it was you? Apparently you do not think htere have ever been ANY wrongful convictions. Perhaps you should educate yourself on this.
2
Only one other comment mentions Ms. Lee's family. They are probably still suffering her loss.
8
If a person is genuinely innocent, there is something seriously wrong with a justice system that expects them to plead guilty to avoid a harsher sentence. The implication is that the person is guilty simply because prosecutors say so. This is some seriously convoluted logic on the part of Ms. Murray and our entire system of justice. It has also resulted in a lot of wrongful convictions and Mr. Syed's may be one of them.
113
As someone who has had a brother-and-sister-in-law murdered by an 18-year-old who broke into their homes and killed them in their beds, I also have a problem with prison terms of only 20 years. Such abbreviated sentences are a nightmare for surviving family and friends of the victim. There are more than enough inmates serving long sentences for non-violent and victimless crimes that are much more deserving of reform of the plea system.
67
Couldn't agree with you more. 2 murder victims (separate crimes) in my family. One perpetrator still in prison,one out after 3 yrs. My sisters murderer was drunk and behind the wheel with multiple DUI's. He's out now,never apologized or took responsibility. 20-plus years might have changed his attitude. I pray for his inevitable future victims.
Revenge is NOT the purpose of justice!
Any person can change - and an 18 year old is not yet fully mature.
Any person can change - and an 18 year old is not yet fully mature.
2
It is unfortunate that this author/the New York Times felt the need to uses Serial's popularity as a Trojan Horse to introduce (reasonable) arguments and possibilities for plea bargain reform. It is even more unfortunate that, having decided to go this route, the author gives the state's evidence and the information that was presented in the podcast only a cursory review and then draws an unequivocal conclusion regarding the strength of the state's case.
19
Regarding the sentence, everything turns on whether the offense is first degree murder or second. As noted, first degree murder is premeditated, done pursuant to a plan, commonly referred to as cold-blooded. Second degree murder is not pre-planned, but impulsive, decided upon based on a reaction to a present situation. Life sentences for first degree murder are not uncommon. Anyone who plans out a killing is a substantial threat to do it again. Sentences for second degree murder tend to be considerably more lenient. Those who kill in a particularly charged situation are believed to be considerably less of a threat to kill again. It is true that the victims of both crimes are dead. But that is not the only thing sentencing is about. If you can reasonably safely release someone to the community, that's what our system calls for. Releasing at age 37 an individual who committed second degree murder at age 17 is pretty much the common practice. Those who would hold such individuals longer favor holding people who quite likely are no longer dangerous. That is not the way the system works.
8
I would agree with you to a point that those who are no longer a threat to society should usually be released, but the "system" is about more than simple public safety. You seem well-informed, so I'm sure you realize that aside from separating the public from dangerous people (segregation) and making them more fit to live in society (rehabilitation), the criminal justice system also exists to at least attempt to achieve some measure of deterrence and retribution. While the idea of societal revenge or deterrence may seem distasteful to some, it's almost inherent in the idea of criminal justice. As you rightly pointed out, most people who kill in the heat of passion (2nd degree murder) are not likely to ever kill again. If criminal justice was simply about public safety, there would be a strong argument for not even arresting a first time second degree murderer. After all, the harm is done and is unlikely to ever be repeated. Yet, we lock them up for decades. If safety is not the issue there, that only leaves retributive and deterrence purposes (you don't need to rehabilitate a murderer who will never murder again anyway). So as unenlightened as pure punishment may sound, it would certainly seem strange to allow a murderer to avoid the consequences of their actions, even IF we could guarantee they were not a threat to anyone going forward.
1
JaneAnne Murray thank you for starting a discussion which probably would play a small part towards making our judicial system more accountable to people as i is very rightly pointed out that currently it is a system based on Plea deals/bargains and not necessarily Justice.
I would just share some traffic tickets/citations only as Murder, Rape and Aggravated Assaults would bring out a lot of emotional responses from all of us.
If one receives a moving violation and shows up in the courts, you are asked as a mandatory process to visit with the Prosecutor to discus the plea. You are in most cases given an option to go in the court and confess to a crime that you did not commit instead of the one that you are originally charged; if you accept the offer, you stand infront of the judge and "LIE" under oath for something you did not do.
The other option is to come back and you would be given a court date and spend another day out of your work and be punished for not having any witnesses to corroborate your story/facts. The burden of proof is not on the officer but on the defendant as the officers word is supposed to be sacrosanct.
In business litigation it is between the two lawyers to come up with a settlement instead of punishing the guilty for fraud and abuse. It is essentially an expensive mediation of two parties attorneys and their teams.
Money Rules our Judiciary! We need to reform it.
Overturn Citizen United.
I would just share some traffic tickets/citations only as Murder, Rape and Aggravated Assaults would bring out a lot of emotional responses from all of us.
If one receives a moving violation and shows up in the courts, you are asked as a mandatory process to visit with the Prosecutor to discus the plea. You are in most cases given an option to go in the court and confess to a crime that you did not commit instead of the one that you are originally charged; if you accept the offer, you stand infront of the judge and "LIE" under oath for something you did not do.
The other option is to come back and you would be given a court date and spend another day out of your work and be punished for not having any witnesses to corroborate your story/facts. The burden of proof is not on the officer but on the defendant as the officers word is supposed to be sacrosanct.
In business litigation it is between the two lawyers to come up with a settlement instead of punishing the guilty for fraud and abuse. It is essentially an expensive mediation of two parties attorneys and their teams.
Money Rules our Judiciary! We need to reform it.
Overturn Citizen United.
8
If there was a problem (not likely) in this case it sounds like it erred on the side of justice.
3
Pleading out is not going to solve the problem of flawed representation for youths. Take Brian Lee Allen. In 1998 at 17 he had been homeless for over a year in Reno. He had one juvenile arrest for drugs a few years before. Seeking shelter and friends he stayed at a house where teens came and went including two guys 16 and 19 who decided to rob a drug dealer. Brian went along and carried the safe to the car and was there when one of the guys shot and killed her. He was arrested a few days later. His lawyers urged him to plead out without a deal from the DA suggesting he would get 20 years. At the 2-hour pathetic sentencing hearing, where phony evidence was introduced (drawings) the DA asked for death, supposedly because he was so violent. He got 2 life withouts plus 30 years. His post-conviction record has no blemishes. The problem with teens and representation is that they often cannot assess what's best for them. Teens are trusting. Why didn't Brian ask for the deal in writing? There are other stories like this. Joseph Lee in Texas who barely spoke to this lawyer before getting 35-life and Jacob Blackmon, also in Texas, and who has maintained is innocence since 1994, got 40-life from a very flawed, even ridiculous kangaroo trial. You can read about Jacob's case at
justiceforjacobblackmon.org
Our justice system pays lip service to juvenile representation but it often is not much more than that.
justiceforjacobblackmon.org
Our justice system pays lip service to juvenile representation but it often is not much more than that.
7
"Prosecute fewer people, incarcerate less often.." What?!
This sounds like a license to ill.
The system does need reform, but this should never be at the expense of justice.
Also, to my mind, murder is murder, whether premeditated or not. Why did these subtleties enter the picture, that you get less time if you acted on the spur of the moment? Wow...
The evolution of the legal system has been within a petri dish but needs objective outside agencies.
This sounds like a license to ill.
The system does need reform, but this should never be at the expense of justice.
Also, to my mind, murder is murder, whether premeditated or not. Why did these subtleties enter the picture, that you get less time if you acted on the spur of the moment? Wow...
The evolution of the legal system has been within a petri dish but needs objective outside agencies.
1
Response to magicisnotreal (the system won't let me reply for some reason): While other dictionaries may reflect a preference for "pled," the official legal term for the past tense of "plea" is "pleaded." See Black's Law Dictionary, the standard for lawyers.
"Pleaded" may sound strange to our ears, but it is correct.
"Pleaded" may sound strange to our ears, but it is correct.
7
I never heard it spoken until sometime in the early 2000's and I'm pretty well exposed to language. I couldn't get their website to bring it up but I block scripts. I suspect it is a similarly new interpretation of the language so that some idiot can feel like they are being modern.
1
Frankly, I find the prospect of a murderer gaining his freedom when he turns 40 rather shocking, and I'll lose no sleep if this guy spends the rest of his days behind bars. From the evidence presented in this article, it does appear quite likely he committed the crime.
I'm adamantly opposed to the death penalty, which I find barbaric and un-befitting a civilized people. But intentional murder is grounds for a life sentence in my opinion. Sure there are mitigating factors that should lessen such a sentence (a history of physical abuse at the hands of the victim, for instance) but jealousy or spite is not one of them.
I'm adamantly opposed to the death penalty, which I find barbaric and un-befitting a civilized people. But intentional murder is grounds for a life sentence in my opinion. Sure there are mitigating factors that should lessen such a sentence (a history of physical abuse at the hands of the victim, for instance) but jealousy or spite is not one of them.
14
Do you also find it barbaric for unjustly accused and convicted people to be sent to prison for their entire life? Or is that OK?
2
It is astonishing that a professor of law who appears to have reviewed at least part of this trial would comment that the evidence of guilt was "strong." There was no blood evidence, DNA, fingerprints, or percipient witnesses to support the state's theory. The entire case relied on a witness, Jay Wilds, whose narrative of events on the day in question has flagellated wildly for reasons that are at best inexplicable, but at worst deeply suspicious. The state's cell tower evidence further fails to match the narrative. And despite the prosecutor recently claiming that this was a domestic violence murder, this is not what he told the jury. To the jury, he presented this as an Islamic honor killing, but then proceeded without introducing a single shred of evidence to support that view. By the end of the trial, the state failed to establish a single fact that suggested the defendant had a motive to murder the victim.
One can debate whether Syed was innocent or guilty. But one can only conclude that this case was "strong" from a position of ignorance of the record.
One can debate whether Syed was innocent or guilty. But one can only conclude that this case was "strong" from a position of ignorance of the record.
206
The state is not required to prove motive. We don't care WHY someone kills another, only whether they did it or not.
The cell phone records, combined with the testimony of the key witness, were strong enough to convince the jury. The girl's body is found in a park and the cell phone records place the defendant in that park on the night of the murder. What was he doing there, bird watching?
Unless the Serial producers could make it seem as if Adnan's guilt was really in doubt, they had no show. Who wants to listen to hours of tiresome excuses proffered by a killer? So they made it seem as if there really was some doubt.
The cell phone records, combined with the testimony of the key witness, were strong enough to convince the jury. The girl's body is found in a park and the cell phone records place the defendant in that park on the night of the murder. What was he doing there, bird watching?
Unless the Serial producers could make it seem as if Adnan's guilt was really in doubt, they had no show. Who wants to listen to hours of tiresome excuses proffered by a killer? So they made it seem as if there really was some doubt.
3
The honor-killing thing was ridiculous (and also prejudiced). The state's timeline was almost certainly off (Hae was likely alive and well at the time they thought she was killed). And Jay shifted his story all the time. So, yes, the prosecution's case for what exactly happened (where, when, why) was not good. But the prosecution's case for what happened and by whom (a murder by Adnon) was, while far from "no reasonable doubt," pretty decent: a guy who could prove he knew quite a bit about it (knew where the body was), had a corroborating witness (Jen), said Adnon did it.
Yes, Jay's story changed a lot, but he says he lied to protect people close to him (he didn't want to mention them or their homes/ hangouts if he didn't know it was okay), and that explanation is very believable. The general line of Jay's testimony was very believable (and it was never contradicted). Reasonable doubt? yes A case believable and worth bringing? Also yes.
Yes, Jay's story changed a lot, but he says he lied to protect people close to him (he didn't want to mention them or their homes/ hangouts if he didn't know it was okay), and that explanation is very believable. The general line of Jay's testimony was very believable (and it was never contradicted). Reasonable doubt? yes A case believable and worth bringing? Also yes.
1
I agree our judicial system has lost credibility. Justice is supposed to be blind, but it is anything but. The fact that going to trial means a tougher sentence if convicted is a perversion of our judicial process. Prosecutors and police "over charge" -- add on more charges than are warranted -- to intimidate people into entering guilty pleas on "lesser" offenses, people who cannot afford their own lawyers get an over-burdened and under-paid public defender. Even location plays a role, with some states having a death penalty while others do not. If anyone doubts there are serious problems with the judicial system, just count the number of innocent people who have been released over the past five years based on DNA evidence.
8
We support it because the constitution says everyone has a right to trial by jury, and we do back flips to pretend that this is true without actually, you know, having to bother to give people all those jury trials. I completely agree: there should be a limit so that people are rewarded for not wasting the state's time, but the result of 15% off would be way more trials. That is fine by me--I support the true right to a trial by jury--but we all need to realize that we are saving lots of time and money by driving over this right.
3
In general, I think that pleading guilty should only allow you to decrease your potential jailtime by a "reasonable" amount. For example, if your punishment would have been 10 years, maybe you should get 15% off (i.e. 8 1/2 years) because you pleaded guilty. The current system in which the prosecutor can charge you with 50 years and then offer 2 years as a plea bargain is absolutely draconian. I don't understand how anyone with even a little honor can support such a system.
7
Unlike pulling a trigger, which occurs in a split second, choking someone to death takes a several minutes, particularly a young healthy victim. While the victim was struggling, did Mr. Syed not have any decency, humanity?
To say this is an impulse control problem associated with youth is such utter bull feathers! I certainly would not want this murderer out at the young age of 40, when he has had a few decades to bulk up at the gym.
Perhaps it should be part of the core curriculum that if you plan to sadistically murder someone, you should plead guilty and have an expensive lawyer. In the meantime, I hope the New York Times can cherry pick some criminal cases that us readers can find more sympathy for.
To say this is an impulse control problem associated with youth is such utter bull feathers! I certainly would not want this murderer out at the young age of 40, when he has had a few decades to bulk up at the gym.
Perhaps it should be part of the core curriculum that if you plan to sadistically murder someone, you should plead guilty and have an expensive lawyer. In the meantime, I hope the New York Times can cherry pick some criminal cases that us readers can find more sympathy for.
24
a litany of failed institutions...the courts, a warren of shifty, self-serving characters, journalism, a circus of infotainers...etc...make your own links, the congress, the education system...all of them rather marred by a preoccupation with privilege than inspired by a commitment to service.
remedy, though not an easy matter, is possible...any substantive step (as opposed to mere complaint or surrender to the slippery slopes) will do...for example, in the present case the creation of an on-the-record plea negotiation
system...and so on: the re-separation of news divisions from entertainment (if the networks lead the cables will follow); suspend the unstructured "educationsim" that passes for k-12 and rebuild it after everyone in it (including teachers) can read with comprehension and write/speak with formal and critical coherence, and so on...tweaks as we go, to be sure, but better than staying on course 'til the crash at the bottom of the slide.
remedy, though not an easy matter, is possible...any substantive step (as opposed to mere complaint or surrender to the slippery slopes) will do...for example, in the present case the creation of an on-the-record plea negotiation
system...and so on: the re-separation of news divisions from entertainment (if the networks lead the cables will follow); suspend the unstructured "educationsim" that passes for k-12 and rebuild it after everyone in it (including teachers) can read with comprehension and write/speak with formal and critical coherence, and so on...tweaks as we go, to be sure, but better than staying on course 'til the crash at the bottom of the slide.
2
"run of the mill domestic violence murder"?
Dear me. Doesn't quite seem run of the mill to the victim, her family, and all? Does it?
Perhaps what's wrong here is the idea that there is such a thing as a "run of the mill domestic violence murder".
Dear me. Doesn't quite seem run of the mill to the victim, her family, and all? Does it?
Perhaps what's wrong here is the idea that there is such a thing as a "run of the mill domestic violence murder".
35
A seventeen-year-old in Columbus, Ohio, Mitchell Sexton, was convicted of three counts of murder and sentenced to three consecutive 15-year sentences. As a seventeen-year-old, he will have his first parole hearing when he is 62.
A judge bound him over to be tried as an adult because, "he couldn't be rehabilitated an the juvenile system." Was that because he couldn't read?
He is alleged to have thrown a firework from his bike through the front window of a house (in the dark, poor white, neighborhood, a distance of thirty feet from the sidewalk) occupied by a father, mother, and three children. Only the children died. The father gave chase after the cyclist after the firework came flying through his window practically under his nose.
If that's what happened, what father doesn't take a glass of water and douse a firework before calling the police? Who just leaves it to burn while he runs after a cyclist he cannot see from his front door? When he returned to his house, he said, he saw it in flames, a conflagration.
The police quickly zeroed in on Mitchell Sexton, and hours later obtained a confession from him. That confession was what the jury used to convict, although many questions were left unresolved, including eyewitnesses who provided an alibi, a witness who smelled accelerant near the stairs up to where the children slept. Those jurors who spoke said that if they didn't agree with the harshness of the sentence.
What judge sentences a child to 45 years in prison?
A judge bound him over to be tried as an adult because, "he couldn't be rehabilitated an the juvenile system." Was that because he couldn't read?
He is alleged to have thrown a firework from his bike through the front window of a house (in the dark, poor white, neighborhood, a distance of thirty feet from the sidewalk) occupied by a father, mother, and three children. Only the children died. The father gave chase after the cyclist after the firework came flying through his window practically under his nose.
If that's what happened, what father doesn't take a glass of water and douse a firework before calling the police? Who just leaves it to burn while he runs after a cyclist he cannot see from his front door? When he returned to his house, he said, he saw it in flames, a conflagration.
The police quickly zeroed in on Mitchell Sexton, and hours later obtained a confession from him. That confession was what the jury used to convict, although many questions were left unresolved, including eyewitnesses who provided an alibi, a witness who smelled accelerant near the stairs up to where the children slept. Those jurors who spoke said that if they didn't agree with the harshness of the sentence.
What judge sentences a child to 45 years in prison?
14
As a former prosecutor, I believe that judicial participation in the plea process would be welcome for the reasons indicated. One caveat, though. The presiding judge could not be the one to whom the plea proposal is assigned. That judge, like the jury, must adhere to the view that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and a proposed plea agreement premised on guilt would be entirely inappropriate for the trial judge to draft.
As for the trial penalty, in principle, there is nothing inappropriate about it. Giving a break to the accused for his or her acceptance of responsibility is well-justified. Unless the guilty admit their guilt, the chance of rehabilitation is next to none. The first step toward re-entering society is to admit to any past wrongdoing. So it makes perfect since to reward those who plead guilty rather than contesting guilt frivolously. Still, when the credit for pleading guilty becomes excessive, there is an undue incentive for the innocent to plead guilty. So, as in all other matters, the sentencing discrepancies between pleading and contesting charges must be moderate.
As for the trial penalty, in principle, there is nothing inappropriate about it. Giving a break to the accused for his or her acceptance of responsibility is well-justified. Unless the guilty admit their guilt, the chance of rehabilitation is next to none. The first step toward re-entering society is to admit to any past wrongdoing. So it makes perfect since to reward those who plead guilty rather than contesting guilt frivolously. Still, when the credit for pleading guilty becomes excessive, there is an undue incentive for the innocent to plead guilty. So, as in all other matters, the sentencing discrepancies between pleading and contesting charges must be moderate.
61
You're making an unwarranted assumption. It makes zero sense to reward people for pleading guilty unless they ARE guilty. Like confessions obtained under torture, a guilty plea under threat of prison is worthless and coercive.
2
"Unless the guilty admit their guilt, the chance of rehabilitation is next to to none." This is a tricky statement and I think it takes a very simple moral code and applies to every situation with way too much confidence. What if the accused don't trust the criminal justice system because they've seen cops abuse their power and are a part of a population that has a culture of mistrust for authority? They might not confess then and that is no reflection on their moral character. This line of thinking doesn't see complexity which means it doesn't see people.
2
Do you demanda "Confession" from the innocent, too?
Or do you wish a harder penalty for them?
Or do you wish a harder penalty for them?
1
The Plea Bargain system is a disaster to the innocent. You are put in a bind. If you plea, you are convicted for a crime you did not do. If you do not plea, then you are punished for not pleaing if convicted anyway.
The real problem is that we have overwhelmed our court system with the war on drugs. People can't get a fair trial because the system is clogged with defendants and the only way they can be handled is with a quick plea system. This is shameful and should be corrected.
The real problem is that we have overwhelmed our court system with the war on drugs. People can't get a fair trial because the system is clogged with defendants and the only way they can be handled is with a quick plea system. This is shameful and should be corrected.
147
And the nightmare does not end there. Once in prison, one is faced with the choice of 'accepting responsibility' for the crime one is innocent of or waving goodbye to any chance of parole and serving out one's entire sentence, while watching the guilty who acknowledge guilt getting out early.
6
I predict that if the author's recommendation to remove mandatory sentencing comes to be, she'll be right back here bemoaning inconsistent and arbitrary sentencing. It opens the door to bad sentencing (the judge didn't "like" the defendant, resented the defendant for insisting on a trial, didn't like the defendant's lawyer, was in a bad mood that day, or worse - sentencing with the taint of racial bias).
1
http://www.enstarz.com/articles/61380/20150121/adnan-syed-murder-asia-mc...
It seems not all the evidence needs to be presented in a trial
It seems not all the evidence needs to be presented in a trial
3
This is ridiculous. Maybe he didn't plead guilty because maybe, just maybe, he's not guilty. None of us know--only he knows. But, the possibility certainly exists that he counted on our justice system to unravel the truth of what happened.
53
"Mr. Syed claims that he twice asked his lawyer to seek an offer from the prosecutor, but she told him none was forthcoming.."
Uhhhhhh.
Uhhhhhh.
5
Shantia,
You could finish your first sentence another way, "...maybe just maybe he thought a jury would believe his assertion that he was not guilty..., and he counted on our system of justice to unravel the truth of what happened in his favor..." That was a wager, a bet, and it has simply turned out to have been wrong. That's all, just wrong. But it was his decision to make, period. And he was competent to make it.
You could finish your first sentence another way, "...maybe just maybe he thought a jury would believe his assertion that he was not guilty..., and he counted on our system of justice to unravel the truth of what happened in his favor..." That was a wager, a bet, and it has simply turned out to have been wrong. That's all, just wrong. But it was his decision to make, period. And he was competent to make it.
2
A 30 year sentence for a child? Quite apart from the troubling issues raised by the plea system, which encourages the actually innocent to plead guilty and is designed to save costs, not attain justice, this fact alone is appalling.
21
Paul,
Not 30 years -- life *plus* thirty years. Even more appalling.
Not 30 years -- life *plus* thirty years. Even more appalling.
4
He was sentenced to life plus 30 years.
1
and that extra 30 years is very hard to do....
2
If I was on the jury based on serial evidence would've been henry fonda holdout. certainly seems innocent or that jay was the culprit or involved more than officially found. As for the plea deal- definitely seems Adnan was poorly represented in terms of all options and avenues to pursue (such as alibi witness!).
8
The witness in question was not a classmate. He had graduated a year earlier.
19
He is guilty and the punishment fit the crime. May his victim rest in peace.
16
The author agreed with your first comment. The editorial is about your second comment, "...the punishment fit the crime," pointing out that most other criminals who commit similar murders get markedly lower sentences. Now of course you're probably thinking "that just means everyone else got too little," and that's one take on it. But either way, even the most stern retributionist should want to see similar crimes treated similarly, with any differences based on the specifics of the case and the accused rather than slop and error in the system. And it seems that the lawyer involved did not ensure her client got the sentence that prosecutors felt was appropriate in other similar cases. Oh right, who cares, it's just a criminal anyway. Fairness is for innocent people.
36
Open discovery would also help too, as plea bargains often allow a prosecutor to mask a weak hand, or worse, push for conviction when the evidence doesn't stand
19
I'm confused. Don't most jurisdictions require the prosecutor to affirmatively turn over all exculpatory evidence? I guess "weak case" is not the same as exculpatory evidence. OK, answered my own question.
1
Yes, but not until discovery, which comes after the charges are brought (indictment), and then they have until the trial.
3
Actually they have until the end of the discovery period, which is set by the trial judge. This keeps both the prosecution and the defense from waiting until right before the trial to produce "discovered" materials.
1
The changes you mention would bring much needed fairness to the plea bargain system that now runs our justice system. Only wealthy defendants go to trial, or those with nearly airtight cases and decent PDs.
It would be a start at reforming a system that's lost credibility, a system with the highest incarceration numbers per capita in the world. Any step in the right direction will help, even if it comes via Serial.
It would be a start at reforming a system that's lost credibility, a system with the highest incarceration numbers per capita in the world. Any step in the right direction will help, even if it comes via Serial.
56
"The unstructured presentation of the facts in 'Serial' obscured a strong case for the prosecution. A classmate who was cross-examined for five days testified that Mr. Syed confessed to the killing, as he enlisted the classmate’s help in burying the body."
It was not a "strong" case. The key witness changed important elements of his story several times throughout the police interviews, trials, and most recently in his post-Serial interview with the intercept. If this key witness or one of his associates were the culprit then he would have plenty of motive to frame Mr. Syed. Moreover, the police appeared over-eager to charge Mr. Syed at the expense of conducting a through investigation of other possible suspects, and may have even tainted their key witness by inadvertently roadmapping the cell tower evidence so the witness's story could evolve to corroborate the cell tower evidence.
In short, I ask that you please refrain from calling this a strong case for the prosecution. They presented a plausible theory for the murder but it did even come close to surpassing the reasonable doubt standard.
It was not a "strong" case. The key witness changed important elements of his story several times throughout the police interviews, trials, and most recently in his post-Serial interview with the intercept. If this key witness or one of his associates were the culprit then he would have plenty of motive to frame Mr. Syed. Moreover, the police appeared over-eager to charge Mr. Syed at the expense of conducting a through investigation of other possible suspects, and may have even tainted their key witness by inadvertently roadmapping the cell tower evidence so the witness's story could evolve to corroborate the cell tower evidence.
In short, I ask that you please refrain from calling this a strong case for the prosecution. They presented a plausible theory for the murder but it did even come close to surpassing the reasonable doubt standard.
138
The jury, of course, disagreed with your analysis. It is also not plausible that Jay, the accomplice, and small time drug dealer, would be given a pass so that the police could get to Adnan, the high achieving, highly respected student.
6
Mr Berry asks that we 'refrain from calling this a strong case for prosecution"
After a 5 week trial, the jury came back with a guilty verdict in 2 hours.
(QED= a strong case)
After a 5 week trial, the jury came back with a guilty verdict in 2 hours.
(QED= a strong case)
9
Adnan was the only suspect that police thought had a motive. I don't know what happened, but Jay has told many many lies that can be fact checked AND he keeps changing key facts. You would at least think that he would keep saying the same testimony!
5
Regarding getting out of jail by age 40, 20 years for killing someone
well THAT is the disgrace
Killers should stay in jail for as long as the vics are dead, and then stay in jail for ll those who loved the vic are still alive, and THEN some
As for youthful offender status, I guess if you are killed by a kid with impulse control problems at age 19, you are not so dead as if you are killed by a 20 year old with good impulse control
Thing is, we should be able to test impulse control, directly, rather than doing age-profiling
And in any event, the ONLY mitigation, via impulse control, is is you are having an epileptic seizure and lose control of your car, killing someone, except that are still doing premeditated murder for driving impaired - low impulse control is evidence of impairment
Incompetence of counsel is narrow, sleeping at trial, drunk, NOT failure to ask for a plea, NOR do we hear that the prosecution offered a plea and was rebuffed
I watch lawnorder all the time, the prosecutors always offer pleas,
Not this time, perp deserved more than he got - deserves more than he could ever get
well THAT is the disgrace
Killers should stay in jail for as long as the vics are dead, and then stay in jail for ll those who loved the vic are still alive, and THEN some
As for youthful offender status, I guess if you are killed by a kid with impulse control problems at age 19, you are not so dead as if you are killed by a 20 year old with good impulse control
Thing is, we should be able to test impulse control, directly, rather than doing age-profiling
And in any event, the ONLY mitigation, via impulse control, is is you are having an epileptic seizure and lose control of your car, killing someone, except that are still doing premeditated murder for driving impaired - low impulse control is evidence of impairment
Incompetence of counsel is narrow, sleeping at trial, drunk, NOT failure to ask for a plea, NOR do we hear that the prosecution offered a plea and was rebuffed
I watch lawnorder all the time, the prosecutors always offer pleas,
Not this time, perp deserved more than he got - deserves more than he could ever get
15
You do realize Law and Order is a television show, right? It is written and presented to get you to watch the commercials, not inform you of the workings of the real NYC legal system, right? The actors offers plea deals to make the story fit into a 53 minute time slot which doesn't qualify as a vigorous defense as required by actual lawyers. If you ever need legal council don't bother calling Sam Waterston...
42
sandis - cherrypicking at its finest - out of an eight paragraph comment you devote your entire response to one line (and the least important one at that)?
The important point, and one I agree with, is that the victim is just as dead and the family just as grieving if the murderer is 16, 20, or 75; and the conviction and sentence should reflect that.
The important point, and one I agree with, is that the victim is just as dead and the family just as grieving if the murderer is 16, 20, or 75; and the conviction and sentence should reflect that.
1
But did you listen to the podcast, Mr. Law&Order guy.
3
The podcast "Serial," at its best, was no more than entertainment and public relations for the convicted killer and his family. The podcast is anti-journalism.
17
Anti-journalism? That's absurd. The reporter spent a year of her life and enormous resources investigating that case, and the balance of her reporting shows itself in the fact that tons of people disagree about whether the convicted man is guilty or not. If all journalism reached that standard of diligence, the profession would be in great shape.
9
I enjoyed the Podcast and liked the way Sarah Koenig let us in to her process of learning about the case. In the end, though, it was mediocre reporting at best.
In the very first episode, we got misleading statements like "either Adnan is lying or Jay is lying." Nope -- it seems almost certain that they are both lying. They certainly both acted as if they had a lot to hide. They were certainly both doing drugs together, etc.
"Everything hinges on these 26 minutes." Certainly the whole framing of the "26 minutes" idea made for fun radio. She spent a whole episode re-tracing the steps of Adnan in an "if he did it" fashion.
But the "26 minute" idea came only from the State's case against Adnan and the call from the perhaps fictitious Best Buy payphone 26 minutes after school let out. What if she was killed later that afternoon? Or that night?
There were never any experts presented as to "time of death." So if Koenig is questioning the State's case, then why not question the "26 minutes"?
And on and on. Bad reporting.
In the very first episode, we got misleading statements like "either Adnan is lying or Jay is lying." Nope -- it seems almost certain that they are both lying. They certainly both acted as if they had a lot to hide. They were certainly both doing drugs together, etc.
"Everything hinges on these 26 minutes." Certainly the whole framing of the "26 minutes" idea made for fun radio. She spent a whole episode re-tracing the steps of Adnan in an "if he did it" fashion.
But the "26 minute" idea came only from the State's case against Adnan and the call from the perhaps fictitious Best Buy payphone 26 minutes after school let out. What if she was killed later that afternoon? Or that night?
There were never any experts presented as to "time of death." So if Koenig is questioning the State's case, then why not question the "26 minutes"?
And on and on. Bad reporting.
21
Ridiculous. There were no witnesses presented as to time of death because the victim was buried and so time of death couldn't be determined with any accuracy. And Koenig employs the 26-minute framework for the exact reason you mention—that it was the state's case. So she's investigating the plausibility of the state's case. That's bad reporting? I don't think so.
11
I'm not stating that she should have presented "time of death" testimony if there were none. What I'm stating is that, if there is none, then we don't know the time of death.
And thus Sarah Koenig needs to separate the two questions of "did Syed commit the murder as the state described?" and "is Syed guilty of a crime here?"
Instead, Koenig dances between the two questions and fails to articulate that, if we are looking at culpability in general, then perhaps the 26 minute question drops out. You state "she's investigating the plausibility of the state's case," but you can find many instances in the show where she changes the question to "did Syed do it?" That is poor reporting.
And thus Sarah Koenig needs to separate the two questions of "did Syed commit the murder as the state described?" and "is Syed guilty of a crime here?"
Instead, Koenig dances between the two questions and fails to articulate that, if we are looking at culpability in general, then perhaps the 26 minute question drops out. You state "she's investigating the plausibility of the state's case," but you can find many instances in the show where she changes the question to "did Syed do it?" That is poor reporting.
1
such incompetence at the time of original investigation.
10
Why does "...Pleaded Guilty..." sound barbaric to my ears?
"In this case, the injustice may lie not in the conviction, but in the failure to negotiate the charges. The unstructured presentation of the facts in “Serial” obscured a strong case for the prosecution. A classmate who was cross-examined for five days testified that Mr. Syed confessed to the killing, as he enlisted the classmate’s help in burying the body"
Wow. The author should really read some of the original documents before making such a bold affirmation, including all the wildy different versions of thIs "classmate" (he had already graduated a year prior to this). The prosecution's case, including the motive, was all based on the testimony of this person that lied constantly and demonstrably not only in polices stateents, but on the witness stand, as he now admitted to in his recent interview. There was no physical evidence and the phone location data which police used to ram in the varying elements of that witnesses' testimony into a timeline now recocognized as impossible (due to various reliable sightings of both victim and accused) is by today's standards considered worthless. There have been several articles citing ths inaccuracies of 1999 technology for location. But, in any case, since the star witness now claims that the burial that he "helped" with occurred hours after the cell data suggested Adnan was near the burial site, there would be absolutely NO case against Sayed if he were tried today.
Wow. The author should really read some of the original documents before making such a bold affirmation, including all the wildy different versions of thIs "classmate" (he had already graduated a year prior to this). The prosecution's case, including the motive, was all based on the testimony of this person that lied constantly and demonstrably not only in polices stateents, but on the witness stand, as he now admitted to in his recent interview. There was no physical evidence and the phone location data which police used to ram in the varying elements of that witnesses' testimony into a timeline now recocognized as impossible (due to various reliable sightings of both victim and accused) is by today's standards considered worthless. There have been several articles citing ths inaccuracies of 1999 technology for location. But, in any case, since the star witness now claims that the burial that he "helped" with occurred hours after the cell data suggested Adnan was near the burial site, there would be absolutely NO case against Sayed if he were tried today.
77
And no mention of the non-existent phone booth at Best Buy that Sayed supposedly called him from, or the continual changes in the supposed witnesses story, or the story coaching by the prosecutor, or the pointless and impossible drive to the cliffs, or the witnesses the prosecution did not call on, or the jealousy of Sayed by the witness. This case needs to be re-opened.
10
What an indictment of our so-called "legal system."
11
It's a pet peeve of mine that we have altered the language to such an extent that the correct word to use in such situations has been purged from it.
The correct term to use here is "Pled" (look in any pre 1990 dictionary) not "Pleaded" which is basically a nonsense word used in this context.
Example "He pled innocent." "Please don't kill me, he pleaded with the guard."
You state this; “The unstructured presentation of the facts in “Serial” obscured a strong case for the prosecution.”
Then in the very next paragraph contradict it and entirely disprove the assertion with this;
“The prosecution’s theory was that Mr. Syed strangled Ms. Lee in a 21-minute car-ride after school. Strangulation, however, is not typically associated with premeditation, and the robbery, kidnapping and false imprisonment charges Mr. Syed also faced appear strained. The classmate’s reliability was compromised, and the cellphone evidence was open to interpretation.”
Its an anomaly that puts a big hole in the article about a very important topic, plea bargains and how unscrupulous prosecutors and police get innocent people to plead guilty using fear and abuse of authority and ignorance of the law to do so.
The correct term to use here is "Pled" (look in any pre 1990 dictionary) not "Pleaded" which is basically a nonsense word used in this context.
Example "He pled innocent." "Please don't kill me, he pleaded with the guard."
You state this; “The unstructured presentation of the facts in “Serial” obscured a strong case for the prosecution.”
Then in the very next paragraph contradict it and entirely disprove the assertion with this;
“The prosecution’s theory was that Mr. Syed strangled Ms. Lee in a 21-minute car-ride after school. Strangulation, however, is not typically associated with premeditation, and the robbery, kidnapping and false imprisonment charges Mr. Syed also faced appear strained. The classmate’s reliability was compromised, and the cellphone evidence was open to interpretation.”
Its an anomaly that puts a big hole in the article about a very important topic, plea bargains and how unscrupulous prosecutors and police get innocent people to plead guilty using fear and abuse of authority and ignorance of the law to do so.
29
Yet another illustration of how the American justice system is fundamentally flawed in ways that most of us do not like to acknowledge. We refuse to see the flawed logic behind the way we "plead": if you plead guilty in the hopes of a reduced sentence, it forever brands you - no matter what the truth is. You might get a reduced sentence, but observers will always remember the plea, which will follow the accused into every legal step that follows and probably make it impossible to return to the life you once led. Perhaps Mr. Syed refused to plead guilty. In my eyes, because he accepted the risk, he may very well be innocent.
What this means is that once prosecutors get hold of you and you enter the legal system, the odds are heavily against you. They pile up as many charges as possible, overwhelming the accused with the promise of a massive trial and heavy prison sentence. So it is not surprising that about 95% of those accused plead guilty, while a tiny minority accept the risk of trial.
I have witnessed how this ruins lives when an old friend got entangled in the system. He insisted he was innocent yet was convinced by his lawyer that it was best to plead guilty to one charge out of over a hundred "counts". He got his reduced sentence, but lost his job and could never re-enter his career. Because of his plea, which you can never really withdraw, he also destroyed his familial relationships. The last I heard, he was living in a homeless shelter.
What this means is that once prosecutors get hold of you and you enter the legal system, the odds are heavily against you. They pile up as many charges as possible, overwhelming the accused with the promise of a massive trial and heavy prison sentence. So it is not surprising that about 95% of those accused plead guilty, while a tiny minority accept the risk of trial.
I have witnessed how this ruins lives when an old friend got entangled in the system. He insisted he was innocent yet was convinced by his lawyer that it was best to plead guilty to one charge out of over a hundred "counts". He got his reduced sentence, but lost his job and could never re-enter his career. Because of his plea, which you can never really withdraw, he also destroyed his familial relationships. The last I heard, he was living in a homeless shelter.
174
Your comment hit home. My family is in the opposite position of your old friend.
In the 1980s my father was indicted on multiple counts of tax-related crimes. He states that he was unwilling to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. He lost at trial and was convicted to 15 years.
I was a teenager, and my life fell apart. Now, more than 30 years after the investigation began, I still have never recovered from the trauma. My entire life has been about prison, and I suppose his has as well. Our relationship is poor, to say the least.
To this day, and after much research into his case, I cannot make sense of whether or not he was guilty. But I suspect he was not.
In the 1980s my father was indicted on multiple counts of tax-related crimes. He states that he was unwilling to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. He lost at trial and was convicted to 15 years.
I was a teenager, and my life fell apart. Now, more than 30 years after the investigation began, I still have never recovered from the trauma. My entire life has been about prison, and I suppose his has as well. Our relationship is poor, to say the least.
To this day, and after much research into his case, I cannot make sense of whether or not he was guilty. But I suspect he was not.
4
Well, in this case, the article says that Sayed *wanted* a plea deal but his attorney didn't ask for one... so it's not quite what you described in your article.
More sympathy here for the murderer, Adnan Syed, than the girl he killed and her family. That's pathetic.
35
This comment, in particular, is bewildering to me. As I read through comments, I believe readers are largely posing a relevant question: did he kill the girl?
3
They deserve justice
1
Sympathy is not a zero sum game. If people don't think Syed is guilty, they are right to sympathize with him.
True sympathy for the victim and family would be finding the actual murderer, not convicting and imprisoning a possibly innocent person.
True sympathy for the victim and family would be finding the actual murderer, not convicting and imprisoning a possibly innocent person.
3
interesting perspective. isn't the lack of a plea bargain part of the basis for a planned appeal for Syed?
in any case, here are some thoughts on Serial from a psychological perspective:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psych-unseen/201501/the-psychology-s...
in any case, here are some thoughts on Serial from a psychological perspective:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psych-unseen/201501/the-psychology-s...
1
He should have pleaded guilty because he IS guilty. He should have stood up and done the right thing for Hae and her family. The case points to guilt more than it does innocence yet he's being held up as some kind of victim. In many cases of wrongful conviction there is no accomplice as there was in this case. The evidence against Adnan Syed is overwhelming. At the top of the list is his inability to remember such a crucial day. It was a day he would remember for many reasons -- just two of which were a phone call from the police that was quite upsetting for him and the day his ex girlfriend went missing. That's a big deal for anyone. Yet for Adnan he calls it an ordinary day. That alone wouldn't be enough but there is more. Unfortunately, the podcast Serial was misleading and now has millions believing Adnan is innocent.
37
I understand that the point of the article is more about our criminal justice system than the case against Adnan Syed, but as a Serial obsessive, I'm irked by how many listeners have decided that Syed must be innocent. The podcast tells a riveting story and suggests that there was reasonable doubt (as well as poor legal representation), but IMO it doesn't - ro at least shouldn't - mislead anyone into thinking that this man is innocent. It's overwhelmingly likely that Syed committed the crime. The right guy is in jail, albeit for the wrong reasons.
10
I totally agree. I feel terrible for Hae's family. I hope Sarah Koening apologizes to them.
4
The accused isn't required to prove his innocence. The prosecution is required to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which you agree did not happen. Therefore he shouldn't have received any jail time.
1
Our current criminal "justice" system includes for-profit prisons, prosecutors more interested in wins and political aspirations than actual justice, and corrupt police departments who see planting evidence and coercing false confessions as business as usual.
How do you reform the current legal system when too many people are making money off keeping it broken?
How do you reform the current legal system when too many people are making money off keeping it broken?
195
Prosecutorial misconduct, over-worked and disconnected public defenders, and cops for whom the manufacture/destruction of evidence, intimidating/rewarding "witnesses", and beat the crap out of anyone who gets in their way is, indeed, "business as usual".
And a prison system whose bottom line increases exponentially, in their wake?!? The GEO Group is a Prison Industry leader. I give you, some comments from one of their Annual Reports: "In particular, the demand for our correctional and detention facilities and services could be adversely affected by changes in existing criminal or immigration laws, crime rates in jurisdictions in which we operate, the relaxation of criminal or immigration enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction, sentencing or deportation practices, and the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws or the loosening of immigration laws. For example, any changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local level also could materially adversely impact us."
And a prison system whose bottom line increases exponentially, in their wake?!? The GEO Group is a Prison Industry leader. I give you, some comments from one of their Annual Reports: "In particular, the demand for our correctional and detention facilities and services could be adversely affected by changes in existing criminal or immigration laws, crime rates in jurisdictions in which we operate, the relaxation of criminal or immigration enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction, sentencing or deportation practices, and the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws or the loosening of immigration laws. For example, any changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local level also could materially adversely impact us."
3
You have no evidence to support your accusation about "corrupt police departments". if it happens it's an aberration.
2
" The unstructured presentation of the facts in “Serial” obscured a strong case for the prosecution".
Actually, it did worse than that. It led a whole host of people, who are used to hearing stories reported with a meaningful narrative, to attach significance to a lot of speculative dead ends and meaningless what ifs. In order to justify the whole exercise, and stop short of actually accusing the main witness, who knew where the victim's car was, of covering up the real murderer, the podcast had to make the questions more important than the answers.
Actually, it did worse than that. It led a whole host of people, who are used to hearing stories reported with a meaningful narrative, to attach significance to a lot of speculative dead ends and meaningless what ifs. In order to justify the whole exercise, and stop short of actually accusing the main witness, who knew where the victim's car was, of covering up the real murderer, the podcast had to make the questions more important than the answers.
33
The storytelling was more amazing than the story, but that's not a crime.
2
More significantly, the two trials actually obscured the problems in the prosecution's case. A juror said Syed's failure to testify "was huge" for the jury, even though the judge had instructed them to infer nothing from his silence. That, alone, indicates his trial was unfair. A solid alibi witness was never interviewed nor ask to testify, but she is adamant to this day that Syed was in the school library when the murder happened. Testimony by the star witness for the prosecution was problematic, but not well attacked by Syed's attorney who, clearly, was deteriorating rapidly while representing Syed.
As an attorney, I have personally seen someone who gave a false statement to police (alleging she had watched my client murder his ex-girlfriend) recant, explaining that she had been pressured by the police into signing the statement they prepared for her, and that she knew nothing about that crime, my client or the victim. After several decades of watching convicted men being exonerated by DNA evidence despite contrary testimony by witnesses claiming otherwise, and having listened to Serial, I am convinced that the prosecution's case against Syed was not strong enough to convince beyond a reasonable doubt.
As an attorney, I have personally seen someone who gave a false statement to police (alleging she had watched my client murder his ex-girlfriend) recant, explaining that she had been pressured by the police into signing the statement they prepared for her, and that she knew nothing about that crime, my client or the victim. After several decades of watching convicted men being exonerated by DNA evidence despite contrary testimony by witnesses claiming otherwise, and having listened to Serial, I am convinced that the prosecution's case against Syed was not strong enough to convince beyond a reasonable doubt.
231
And it was Sayed's incompetent (and later disbarred for fraud) lawyer who prevented him from testifying in his own defense.
12
Ms Murray,
I completely agree with your statement above. It shows actual wisdom. Our society should change the plea system as soon as possible.
Good job.