WorstPlans.com updates every Monday!

Your weekly source for terrible plans and ideas!

Tag: criminal law

The secret that BIG CITY LAWYERS don’t want you to know! Never get convicted of a crime you committed again, with this one insane tip!

Background:

“Justice is blind” is a common, but incorrect, expression.

It is indisputable that that factors of age, sex, race, general attractiveness, style of dress, hairstyle, and more will factor into both whether or not an individual is convicted of a crime and in the severity of sentencing for those convicted of a crime.

defendant-mystery

Fig. 1: If the defendant were replaced by a featureless silhouette, it would be impossible for the defendant to be negatively impacted by existing prejudices.

Proposal:

Normally, someone accused of a crime is forced to sit in the trial room, but they typically have very little input into the actual trial.

Therefore, it’s not actually necessary that the person sitting at the defendant’s table actually be the defendant.

The proposal is as follows: the actual defendant can hire an attractive model (of a sex, race, age, etc. of their choosing) to represent them in the courtroom. This hired stand-in could be a well-spoken and attractive orator.

The jury and judge would never actually know who the real defendant was.

If this “proxy defendant” needs to take the witness stand, they could also be outfitted with a wireless earpiece so that the real defendant could supply information to the proxy, who would then actually be the one to relate it to the judge or jury.

As an additional point: it’s frequently possible to determine a defendant’s sex and race by just their name. This can be solved by assigning randomized names and/or numbers to the defendant and others involved in the case. (In fact, this is already done for jurors in America—”Juror Twelve” is unlikely to be a person’s actual name.)

Fig. 2: Even the most fair judge is at least somewhat influenced by the appearance of the defendant; for example, the be-suited golden man at left is unlikely to be judged as harshly as the unkempt gremlin at right.

PROS: Allows justice will actually be applied fairly, regardless of the appearance of the defendant.

CONS: Would further increase the advantage of wealthy defendants.

Fix the justice system and prevent railroading of suspects with one unlikely tip: purposefully arrest and charge innocent people with crimes!

Background:

If television police procedurals (or the first episode of the show “Making a Murderer”) have taught us anything, it is that occasionally, during a criminal investigation, the police may be certain that they have the correct person in custody for a crime, causing them to stop investigating other leads.

So the underlying problem is:

  • There is a great degree of certainty that a specific suspect is in fact guilty

And

  • There is incentive to obtain a conviction

Which may lead to:

  • Bending the rules (or brutalizing a suspect) to gather evidence or secure a conviction.

After all, if a person is certain that they have apprehended a deadly murderer, there is a certain appeal to bending the rules to ensure a conviction. But 1) this is technically not allowed, and 2) the apprehended person is occasionally innocent.

But this can be addressed with the following modification to the criminal justice system:

Proposal

But what if the suspect was not at all clearly guilty? Or what if there were 4 possible suspects, only one of whom could possibly have committed the crime, but all with substantial amounts of evidence pointing toward them?

So the specific proposal here is a variant of the police lineup:

  1. When an individual is about to be arrested for a crime…
  2. A special branch of investigation, the “Fabricated Evidence Bureau” (“F.E.B.”) will now ALSO arrest 3 additional randomly-chosen citizens from the same approximate “suspect” demographic (e.g. sex, ethnicity, nationality, educational background, etc…), and falsely charge them with the same crime.
  3. Then, the F.E.B. will fabricate evidence implicating these 3 definitely-innocent individuals in the crime as well.
  4. Only after this process is done will the suspects be turned over to the “real” police, who will now be uncertain of which (if any) of the suspects is actually guilty.
  5. But the actual police will know for certain that at least 3 of their suspects have been falsely accused, and will thereby be more likely to follow the due process of law.

People might object to the idea of systematically accusing innocent individuals of heinous crimes on purpose, but this could be seen as just part of the cost of a modern society, much like jury duty or compulsory military service.

Conclusion:

This idea would revolutionize the justice system and, more importantly, might make a good TV show.

PROS: Reduces the stigma of being falsely accused of a crime. May lead to better investigation of crimes.

CONS: Probably increases legal system costs and prison / jail overcrowding.