Anarchist viewpoints/critiques of bail, parole, and plea bargains.

Question

Given the long history of anarchists sitting in the state's cells, we should be able to put something together.  Comment on the injustice system in general, or the 'acceptance' of conditions under duress in the specific.

Obviously, no one here believes in absolute answers; so just wind up and gimme whatever random thoughts rattle through your skulls.  I'd much rather have a collection of random comments, than the usual dead fucking silence because noone knows how to phrase their thoughts with the prissy precision of academia-pretension.

i have my opinions around this, but i'll bite my tongue for now - i'll spit the blood back out later when i feel like it.

(ok, Artificiality, the table has been set - now belly up to the bar.)

Comments

i've had daydreams of busting out of jail or helping someone to bust out...come up with some crafty plan to fool the bastards. i've probably watched shawshank redemption too many times, but the idea appeals to me.

Answer 1

It is really situational. I don't think that in most cases there is a benefit to languishing behind bars, but I have also seen/experienced how the rush to jail solidarity anbd focusing on bailing comrades out, etc. distract from the larger issues at hand. Which probably makes me sound like an asshole, but whatever. Also, it really might depend. I am far more concerned about bailing out someone who is more vulnerable incarcerated (ie - they have health/medical conditions that could be greatly exacerbated, or identites that make them targets).

Regarding parole and plea bargains, again, it really depends. If defending your innocence to the last is really important to someone, great, but if I thought pleading out for a lesser infraction would be better than tying up my time and money in some righteous protestation of my innocence, well, why not take it?

(There is more to untangle in this, probably)

Answer 2

Stop consenting to their jurisdiction.
If you don't challenge jurisdiction immediately and without fail you have granted your consent.

Here is one of the two fellas I have found that are making a lot of sense.

http://www.marcstevens.net

He has made headway by not letting the judge get off topic, often the judge will act as the lead prosecutor and that violates your due process rights by demonstrating the judge's bias toward the prosecution.  The judge is supposed to presume you innocent and until facts are entered into the record to prove jurisdiction all he should do is look to the prosecution and ask then what they have, when they have nothing he should dismiss the charges, but don't expect that to happen, you will probably have to appeal and on the appeal the state will drop the charges for some other reason so they don't have to let the others in the courtroom know that they too can withdraw their consent to jurisdiction by standing up and asking for the evidence.

The other fella is Eric Whoru, he has been arguing from this perspective since '64, if you challenge jurisdiction the prosecution has to prove it from the records already in existence, if you don't challenge jurisdiction then you have consented to it and are subject to whatever they do to you.

So, if you are forced into court immediately stand up and say, 'What facts have been entered into evidence to support jurisdiction.'.
There are none, and they will try to get you off subject, just object to anything they say as non responsive and stick to the fact that in the absence of facts supporting jurisdiction their rules say that jurisdiction does not exist, facts not in evidence are presumed not to exist.
Absent jurisdiction all else fails and you should be released.
Do this yourself, no lawyer can/will do it for you.
Prepare now so that when the time comes you won't be too scared by the guns being pointed at you to do it.