How to shut down the US Federal criminal "Justice" System, for $10-15 million per year.

[jim bell]

A few years back, probably 2011 (while I was still in prison) I thought of a marvelous way to virtually destroy the Federal criminal "justice" system.  At least, the people who make up that system will certainly think it is being destroyed.  I mentioned it a few years ago. It might cost little more than $10 million per year.
 There are many high-profile cases which would militate in favor of initiating such a system.  One, Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life terms for, ostensibly, running the Silk Road website.  Another Kim Dotcom, who is threatened with extradition in New Zealand.  Julian Assange, whose story is too well known here to need to describe it.  Edward Snowden, who is presumably still in Moscow for leaking a huge quantity of NSA information.  There are also major drug cases, such as El Chapo, Joaquin Guzman.  
In some of these cases, the defendant should have had a lot of money, such as Ulbricht, although it was lost to the Feds.  Kim Dotcom may still be rich.  Julian Assange could probably raise a lot of money, Snowden might do so as well.  Guzman, and probably many other Mexican drug cartels, could easily raise millions per year, if they actually wanted to do this.  Maybe even Martha Stewart would hold some residual grudges.  Anyone who thinks he is at risk of Federal criminal prosecution would want to see the system essentially shut down.  
How?  Well, let's go to the statistics.  Last year, there were 77,152 new criminal defendants in the Federal criminal system, see   http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/28/federal-criminal-prosecutions-fall-to-lowest-level-in-nearly-two-decades/   .   According to    https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/FY16_Overview_Federal_Criminal_Cases.pdf  , "In fiscal year 2016 the vast majority of offenders (97.3%) pleaded guilty."  If that figure can be believed, then there were presumably no more than 2.8% x 77,152 criminal trials, or only 2160 trials.  Perhaps this statistic would surprise most people.  I think the average sentence is about 3 years.
The ability of the Federal criminal system to actually put on criminal trials is very limited.  There are only a limited number of courts, and judges, and prosecutors, and this system must share space and time with civil trials.  It is quite possible that it would be very difficult to put on much more than those 2160 trials.  That court space has to be shared with civil cases, as well.   All, or at least most of those people had a right to a jury trial.  If all, or most of those defendants were somehow motivated to demand such a trial, rather than plead guilty, havoc would ensue.  Even if the number of trials could increase, say to about 3000, then the remainder, 77,152-3000, or 74,152, would have to walk free, because the system could not possibly try them all.  The limitation is not merely court space:  Trials are "expensive" in preparation, research, and evidence.
And that led me to yet another "awfully wonderful, wonderfully awful" idea, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss and the Grinch.  What would motivate all of these people to demand a jury trial? Well, currently they are threatened with much more punishment if they plead not guilty and demand a trial, and lose.  Like a variant on the "Prisoner's dilemma", each one is forced to conclude that it is better to 'take the deal' rather than resist, and demand a trial.
What would change this system around?  Well, the lot of a prisoner in Federal prison is poor, if he has no money.  No money, no commissary.  No drinks, cookies, crackers, soups, candies, etc.  I know:  I spent 13 years in prison, time I shouldn't have spent.  Many enter prison broke.  What if they were offered, say, $3000 if they agreed to demand a jury trial, and thus forced the government to actually put them on trial, form a jury, and put on a trial.  If the government dropped the case, or reduced the charges to something that didn't require a trial, the defendant would get nothing.  
If we assume that the Federal court system could put on 3,000 trials, one defendant per trial typically, the cost for such a project would be 3,000 x $3,000, or 9 million dollars.  It would be limited by the number of actual trials the Feds could put on each year, multiplied by the dollar amount that would have to be paid to motivate a defendant to demand a trial.
Tell each new Federal defendant that if he pleads not guilty, and insists on a jury trial, and if he actually gets that trial, he will be paid the $3,000.  Guilty or not guilty, it won't matter.  Have a trial, get the money, simple as that.   I am merely guessing what the 'proper' figure would be, in order to motivate such people adequately.  But if most people were already demanding a jury trial, and tens of thousands of fellow defendants were being freed due to lack of ability to give them trials, it shouldn't take a lot of money to induce these people to 'stand in line', and demand a trial.  After all, they would know that if they didn't get the money, that would mean that they would have been freed.  And that's the goal, isn't it?  At least for the defendant, that is.  
You can imagine what would happen.  The Feds would have to ration trials.  Only the most "worthy" defendants would get prosecuted.  And yes, there are definitely some worthy defendants. I met a few!!   But the total number of people who could enter the Federal prison system per year would drop from perhaps 75,000 per year to 3,000 per year.  This year, there are about 185,300 Federal prisoners.  Drop the input to 3,000 per year, and the total population could easily drop to 20,000, and perhaps to as low as 10,000, after a few years.  Dozens of prisons across the nation would have to close, maybe well over 100.  
It costs approximately $40,000 to feed and house a Federal prisoner.  Most of that money probably goes to prison staff salaries and supplies, and most of the rest goes to prison construction.  Drop the total Federal prison population from 185,000 to 15,000, and they will save about 170,000 multiplied by $40,000, or about $6.8 billion dollars per year.
Doesn't this sound like a worthy goal?
We may speculate about who would be motivated to fund such a project.  Give them the ability to donate anonymously, and they might act.  There might arguably be 200,000 people per year who fear some sort of Federal prosecution.  A donation of $50 per year, average, would raise $10 million.  It would not take many tax evaders, resistors, or avoiders to foot the bill.  People who resented a prior prosecution would add up, as well.  
Why not?
              Jim Bell





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 10205 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20171019/08d9d03f/attachment.txt>