You would probably faint (or probably not) if you knew the number of people who are falsely accused and then interrogated for hours and hours, like POW’s, alone in a room with police officers who act like military officers, until they finally break down and say what the officers want to hear, just to escape the torture. In these interrogations, of course only the so-called confession, and not how they got the confession, is taken for evidence. All they need is a confession, after that nothing else matters. The person is then convicted and imprisoned for a crime they didn’t even commit.
Also, during these interrogations for hours, things can be added to the person’s memory without them even knowing, and their memory of the truth can, and will be, disrupted (this is mind manipulation from scientific research that you are not aware of). The disrupting of the memory will kill their creditability at trial. And not only disrupting memory, they lie and manipulate you to try to change your whole belief of your innocence to believing that you’re guilty. Interrogations go on for hours because basically what they are doing is reprogramming you. Making the guilty is ten times easier than finding them. This has been going on forever.
{NYPD cops ‘make up bogus drug charges against innocent people to meet their arrest quotas’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048719/NYPD-accused-making-bogus-drug-charges-innocent-people-meet-arrest-quotas.html#ixzz1bo6uDFUy
We fabricated drug charges against innocent people to meet arrest quotas, former detective testifies
BY JOHN MARZULLI
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, October 13, 2011
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-13/news/30291567_1_nypd-narcotics-detective-false-arrest-suit-henry-tavarez
Planting drugs on innocent people: NYPD’s ‘shocking’ scandal
By The Week’s Editorial Staff | The Week – Fri, Oct 14, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/planting-drugs-innocent-people-nypds-shocking-scandal-153700962.html}
The system denies that officers torture people, but they do. The most common thing they’ll do is hit you and kick you, twist your arm back, and put you in holds (these things they do regularly, but they do worst things than this), but people on the outside will never find out about it. This is especially true with arm twisting and holds. Muscle damage doesn’t show like cuts and bruises so there’s no evidence for the public to see. Anyone who has ever had this done to them by the police knows that it lasts forever–your arms and/or shoulders will never be the same. Sleep deprivation: How much does it hurt your whole body when you’re not allowed to sleep when you’re sleepy? Think about it. It feels like torture, right? This is effective in making someone say whatever you want them to say, and sounds harmless to those who hear of it — you.
You hear and see on TV about other country’s police forces being accused of beating people while in custody and you think “That’s a shame.” “They are evil over there.” When you hear or see on TV about American police forces being accused of beating someone in custody, you automatically believe that the person is lying. “Criminals always lie.” When it’s self, it doesn’t happen; when it’s others, it does. You’re already partial. Being partial, it doesn’t matter what the truth is.
If you have the money to get a good lawyer, then that good lawyer will get you acquitted of charges or have your sentence brought down dramatically. If you don’t have the money to get a good lawyer, then the lawyer you do get, if you get one, can’t get you acquitted or have your sentence brought down at all. In fact, he/she may make it even worst. Do you know what all of this means? It means your “justice” in your “justice” system is based on the amount of money you as a citizen has! This is what you’re running and calling it justice?! Who are the main one’s who will be victims of this? Poor Whites and minorities, once again (because of their income levels).
If fair/just, why is it that if you’re arrested for a crime that you did not commit, you still have to sit in jail, doing jail time, until your trial, which you may or may not even win for this crime that you did not commit? Isn’t that “guilty until proven innocent”? Aren’t you being punished, and with the same punishment you would have if you were found guilty, while your merely accused? Doesn’t ever single person who is arrested have to prove that they are innocent of what they are being accused of? So, why have you been bragging for many decades that in your system, a person is innocent until proven guilty, when it’s not even true? Justification: “The accused is not officially guilty.” So, they’re just treated as though they’re guilty.
If the “justice” system is supposed to be about fairness and equal treatment for all, then why have minimum and maximum sentences apply to everyone? Shouldn’t it be a set sentence for some crimes? I understand that there are special circumstances, but not with everyone. They have it because their filtration system is not just on and off (Black, not White, for example), it also limits the amount, as proved by their own statistics. And don’t forget about fine amounts, bail amounts, parole eligibility, and the choice of punishments offered (community service may be offered to one, and not another). All things are based on how the person in charge feels. And with the overwhelming majority of those in charge being White, and a majority of Whites having race based generalizations and/or dislike or hate for minorities, what are the odds of a minority receiving fair treatment in such a system?
{ARE Blacks A Criminal Race? Surprising Statistics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-jones/are-blacks-a-criminal-rac_b_8398.html
Race and Prison
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64
Concern over drug convictions for blacks
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/americas/concern-over-drug-convictions-for-blacks}
Sentencing guidelines, minimum and maximum sentence for a crime, were enacted in 1987, so think of what was done before then, especially with the War on “drugs.” Though it changed some things, it just made others look better. Some minimum and maximum sentences give you the illusion that the amount of time you receive is not completely up to the judge but is determined by law. Plan A, the judge can give you whatever amount of time he/she desires. Plan B, the judge can give you an amount of time between two set times. But, with Plan B, what is the judge’s choice of anywhere between, for instance, ten and fifty years? It’s basically the same as Plan A.
{This is similar to the Constitution and the Supreme Court: If those people determine what is and what isn’t without it even having to be undeniably true, then you follow those people, not those laws. You’ve seen many cases where this is true –where something is obviously Constitutional or not Constitutional, but they choose the opposite, and that’s what is followed. Another similarity is “the Church” in Europe, throughout history, and the Bible.}
This is another way they use the sentences, especially if you’re a minority: If you’re arrested for a crime that you may or may not have committed, and you don’t have money for a good lawyer, then the lawyer you get or person you receive from the court will tell you exactly, “You can plead Guilty or No Contest and receive seven years.” This is all they’ll say to you if you don’t say anything. If you bring up trial, then they’ll say, “well, you can go to trial, but you’ll be facing thirty years if you lose instead of seven.” This is all they’ll say! They will make sure you feel as though winning is not an option, and in almost all cases won’t even bring it up. You’re made to believe that you’re only choices are “this” or “that.”
So, for people who are actually innocent and can possibly win, winning is not presented to them as an option, so they don’t even believe they can win; and the risk of more than quadruple the years is too much so they take the seven years. This goes on all day, every day; even in traffic court. (Think about that. It goes on every single day.) It’s a known permanent part of the system, it’s not just a few bad apples. Oh, but it’s fair, it’s justice.
There are different reasons why they make sure winning is not an option. Some are racist, and some are lazy. The lazy ones are usually those appointed by the court, and people who need those appointed by the court are usually the poor. All the lazy ones care about is getting the case over with, so settling in a case is the easiest and fastest way to this; and easy and fast is exactly what the government requests. (All they ever do is skim over your case and tell you to settle.) If it’s a cheap hired lawyer, which people with less money will have to get, they get paid no matter what (and don’t care about wins and losses on their record), so they really don’t care about their client.
If the lawyers or “public pretenders” (person you receive from the court) are racist, and you are the race in which they are racist against, then they already believe you’re guilty (American mind set. And since it’s an American mind set, you will almost always have someone partial “fighting for you” if you’re a minority.) or care nothing about you winning, so they are much more likely to want to settle and tell you that settling is the best option to take, either knowingly or unknowingly. You may also get combinations, that is, those who have the extreme desire to just settle and get it over with, along with hate for you and/or belief that you are guilty. If you are a minority in this country, you have it bad.
If wrongfully convicted and wanting a retrial, you can have more than enough evidence to prove your innocence, and they can still say no (and in most cases will). They’ll make up some lame reason (lie) why they won’t retry your case, but it’ll be obvious that they don’t want the fact that they imprisoned someone falsely to come out. Because they fear being blamed for doing what they did, and all that comes with it –such as possible punishment, and having to find the person who actually committed the crime– they’ll keep an innocent person in jail/prison. The people in the “justice” system fear justice, so they administer injustice. This happens all the time. (As with nearly all systems in the country, every entity that’s created for recourse, oversight, and checks and balances is corrupt. They’re mainly just for show, but most people believe they actually work.)
Being in America, everything is racial; therefor, if you’re White, you have a better chance of getting your case retried than someone who is Black. If you’re Black, it most likely will not happen. This is not only because many are racist and don’t care about you, it’s because it’ll be made into a racial thing by others and will be another Black person wrongfully convicted. This adds to the fear those in the system face. The combination of those fears, plus the fact that they don’t like you anyway, and you can forget about it. The only way you’ll get your case retried is if your situation is shown on TV and becomes a huge issue.
{If you’re found innocent and are let go, then the charge may stay on your record. If you want it off, you have to fight for years, and then maybe after years, it will be taken off. Does that look like a people who are for justice? If a truly just person was to find out that they convicted an innocent person, their reaction would be to do whatever they could to make that person’s life go back to normal, plus compensation.}
Article VIII of the Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” To someone who doesn’t have a lot of money what would be excessive bail and fines to them, would be small change to others. If your family made $24,000 a year and that all went on survival with nothing left over, then $10,000 would be excessive. Someone whose family did have a lot of money could bail a person out, pay for lawyers –or good lawyers– court cost, and so on while someone whose family didn’t have a lot of money couldn’t, so that person would be stuck in jail. It’s the same with fines.
What is cruel and unusual punishment? Something could be cruel to you, but if you’ve never experienced it, you would never know, therefor you say that it isn’t cruel. What is unusual? What is their definition of “inflicted.” It’s not cruel and unusual punishment to lock a human being in a concrete box all day, every single day? And then when they “lose it”: “More jail time for you.” “No parole for you this time.”
If you have enough money, you can get yourself out of jail. Getting out of jail is getting away from your punishment. So, if you have enough money, you can get out of your punishment. You might say that you’re not getting out of your punishment because the money you pay is the punishment. In order for that to be true, the amount of money you pay to get out has to be equal in punishment to the amount of time you would have been in jail. Let’s say that $10,000 represents a year in jail. If one person pays the $10,000, it’s nothing to them (it’s “chump change”) therefor not even a punishment. If another person pays that money, it’s everything to them; possibly everything they have; therefor, a huge punishment.
Is $10,000 to a multimillionaire a punishment? Is $10,000 to someone who makes $24,000 a year and has $200 in assets a punishment? If one can even get the money to pay, that person is punished tremendously; if another pays, that person is not punished at all. So, people with enough money can, and do, get out of their punishment. Once again, your “justice” has a price.
The same goes for set fines on crimes. If someone with little money gets a fine, they’re life is ruined; all other bills and dependencies suffer, and they will go into debt. This is another type of life sentence. And then when they can’t pay the fine, it’s increased or they are put in jail/prison, or it’s sent to collections where it ruins their credit, effecting their well being for years to come. It’s clear that the “justice” system is anti poor people.
You have to search for a fair trial. What kind of bull is that? Shouldn’t that tell you that something is wrong with what you’re running, how your running it, or your society? The majority of America, being White, has no problem with this because they are not a victim of it at hardly any time. The instances when they are a victim, it’s usually aimed at what they did (crime committed), not them themselves. In a historically and presently racist country, you as a minority can never get a fair trial. Your search for a fair trial needs to begin outside the country (this is not a joke nor exaggeration), but since this problem doesn’t affect the right people, it’s not a problem at all. The majority of Whites just started to believe the “justice” system was not perfect in the late 90’s (not perfect, but still great). Change starts with the people, but the majority is never affected, and in this country the majority is all that matters, so change never even begins to develop.
{How can you get a minority to laugh? Read him/her part of the sixth amendment of the Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed …” Not only is the statement of impartiality a joke, but so is the part about a trial by jury. Most of the people who are arrested for a crime don’t have their case brought before a jury, they only go before a judge or someone filling in for a judge.}
Continued on Page 4
