Court Appearances and Canadian Legal Terms

[swedie]

With respect, there is also a lot of continued determination to convict DM ahead of time by many. Also it is noticeable how any post which tries to push for the presumption of innocence is met with such a strong contingent to deflect the mere thought into the compost heap. JMO . I actually was also beginning to think it was intentional, but maybe its just a strong push for each ones own interpretation of what justice means prior to a trial. JMO

Referencing other cases is quite normal IMO, we hear the TS case mentioned quite a lot here IMO. Someone posting that many cases of murder and missing persons never get into the newspaper or the TV, is stating a fact, so this case is quite a different case it seems, in many ways.

I also find it interesting that the case was somehow promoted headlong into the media, I think a few people feel that way JMO

Personally I don't see this case garnering any more attention than that of Russell W or Tori S's case. (Or other numerous case in the USA). Both of these cases made MSM headlines immediately also. They received just as much attention here on WS as TB's case. And handled the same by MSM and LE in getting information out to the public and keeping it in the headlines until the accused or victim was found.

I have to say this case is like deja vu from the days spent following Tori's case here on WS. We now know how that case turned out. MR also has his team of supporters pushing for the presumption of innocence also. Not so sure about RW's case on this site as I did not follow that one as closely. I highly doubt it though as there was hardly any time between Jessica's murder and RW getting caught red handed coupled with his confession.

BTW out of curiosity, has anyone had the benefit of getting their hands on the transcripts from CN's bail hearing? Obviously that information cannot be shared here due to the PB, but maybe, just maybe it may, or may not change ones thought process on guilt or innocence in this case. Just saying and curious and of course MOO.

 

[Carli]

i have never seen such a continued determination to deflect attention off millard and / or attempt to re-direct WS threads with the mention of other cases / issues before. after so many instances one begins to think it's intentional...

Since you're replying to my post I would be very grateful if you would go ahead and state exactly what you mean. I'm not very good with riddles. Tnx in advance.

 

[Carli]

What IS run-of-the-mill for thousands of non high-risk Canadians (husbands, wives, grandparents, etc) is the run-of-the-mill activity of advertising your truck (or salad spinner, or antique rocker, or used mattress, etc) in a buy/sell publication and ending up burned beyond recognition on some rich dude's farm as the result of an ordinary, every day activity. WRT the high-risk victims of Willy the Pig, that changed after LE throughout Canada learned their lesson from Vancouver's case. I guess you and some other more recent members didn't participate in the Pickton forum back in the day, the recent Legebokoff forum, or the Highway of Tears forum, the KARE / Edmonton Serial Killer forum, or any of the numerous individual threads related to New Brunswick victims:

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q="Canada+Canada"+Brunswick+site:www.websleuths.com

(^^ only because you specified New Brunswick victims "most of whom don't even rate a reference here")

There are many, many cases here where high-risk, marginalized victims are discussed in a non-judgmental manner. There aren't many cases where folks come in to participate primarily in the defence of a rich accused murderer, almost to the exclusion of interest or participation in other cases.

ETA: Speaking of eastern provinces, the case of the boy who was held captive in chains in Nova Scotia springs to mind .. didn't see a lot of interest in the presumption of innocence for the 3 pedo creeps that were involved in that horrific case.

Again, please let me understand. You've mentioned that one of the accused in this case is reportedly "rich". Is that the part that's garnered all the attention? Something about evil rich people and their ill-gotten gains? I could be wrong. But this "rich" thing pops up time and time again in various and numerous ways. It's almost like a peculiar jealousy. As if heinous crimes should remain the province of the disenfranchised or something. Please correct my understanding - or misunderstanding. I just don't see what "rich" has to do with anything. And if "rich" doesn't have to do with anything, why all the fuss about this particular tragic event? MOO. IMHO. What, by the way, is a high-risk Canadian? Are their assaults and murders less significant in some way than that of non high risk Canadians? Do their deaths represent less terrible losses for their families and friends? Or are the families and friends of "high-risk" Canadians marginalized, too? Why?

I accept your censure for not participating in other forums on WS but my interest is Canadian jurisprudence and Canadian aviation history, not murder. Sorry. It is what it is.

 

[Carli]

If DM had been hanged from a tree on May 12 , 2013 your argument would be valid.

"Presumption of innocence" is one of the most misunderstood and misused terms

"Presumption of guilt" is more appropriate .... that is why people are interviewed and questioned .... that is why arrests are made .... that is why charges are laid .... that is why people sit in jail waiting to go to trial .... because there is enough evidence for everybody to "presume they are guilty "

But no sentencing or punishment is handed out until they are found guilty in court.

And until they are found guilty they are treated as though innocent by our legal system ... it does not mean they are innocent , never has .

At one time if a horse went missing and there was a stranger in town the guy could be hanged from a tree before the sun went down because everybody presumed he was guilty .

When the horse was found to have simply wandered off ... the lynch mob realized their mistake and society began to apply the presumption of innocence until the theft could be proven in court ... that was the whole intent of the term

Well, a good horse story is hard to beat. Nevertheless, accuracy is kind of cool, too. IMO. Or at least accuracy according to Google. LOL.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/...d/The-History-of-the-Presumption-of-Innocence

Mind you, maybe Deuteronomy lost his horse?

Sorrry, but it just not so that a person is presumed guilty in law until the prosecution's case against them is proven in a properly constituted court of law. Now, grant you, certain liberties have been taken with that time honoured cornerstone of jurisprudence during the past 13 years or so. Nevertheless the principles stand. These are, I might add, well underlined by the huge payouts western governments, including our own, have found themselves forced to pay out to those wrongfully imprisoned. IMO. IMHO

Is it possible that ancient Rome actually had a better understanding of the concept of "presumption of innocence" than prevails today?

Excerpt from the Link:

Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the Emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, "a passionate man," seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, "Oh, illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?" to which Julian replied, "If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?" Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c.

 

[Sillybilly]

Again, please let me understand. You've mentioned that one of the accused in this case is reportedly "rich". Is that the part that's garnered all the attention? Something about evil rich people and their ill-gotten gains? I could be wrong. But this "rich" thing pops up time and time again in various and numerous ways. It's almost like a peculiar jealousy. As if heinous crimes should remain the province of the disenfranchised or something. Please correct my understanding - or misunderstanding. I just don't see what "rich" has to do with anything. And if "rich" doesn't have to do with anything, why all the fuss about this particular tragic event? MOO. IMHO. What, by the way, is a high-risk Canadian? Are their assaults and murders less significant in some way than that of non high risk Canadians? Do their deaths represent less terrible losses for their families and friends? Or are the families and friends of "high-risk" Canadians marginalized, too? Why?

I accept your censure for not participating in other forums on WS but my interest is Canadian jurisprudence and Canadian aviation history, not murder. Sorry. It is what it is.

We are so off-topic in this thread, but I will respond to your post here and perhaps the mods will see fit to move these posts over to a more general discussion thread.

Your post indicated that marginalized victims don’t get as much attention as TB’s case and that some cases don’t’ even get a mention here. I pointed out there are hundreds of cases here, so yes … just because you aren’t participating in them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I wasn’t censuring anybody for not participating … only pointing out that such blatant generalizations are from a position of being uninformed in that regard.

In considering victimology, the Pickton victims were high risk missing persons from the 1990s compared to low or non high-risk victims (the Tim Bosmas of the world). High risk victims (prostitutes, hitch-hikers, drug addicted) are tops in victimology (thus “High Risk Missing Persons Task Force” as it relates to the Edmonton cases, calls for national inquiries into the missing/murdered native women .. attention is being paid to marginalized missing or murdered individuals). If you don’t research it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Tim Bosma was probably one of the lowest risk (read non risk) victims you'll find in victimology … a husband, father, church-going, working man, going about his personal business without placing himself in high risk situations (which we now reconsider). So IMO, the publicity that you perceive in his case doesn’t mean that others matter less, only that people are shocked that it could happen to some Average Joe/Jane like you and I … folks who do not knowingly or intentionally place themselves in dangerous positions.

Jealousy of Dellen Millard, LOL? I doubt that anything about his lifestyle breeds envy here. The funny thing quite contrary to what you are seeing is that other posters here are seeing a concern, a strong defence lacking in substance, for the accused DM, the rich kid accused of murder, but there was no such staunch defence (for example) for 3 low to middle class, down-east pedophiles (now convicted), or Cody Legebokoff (now convicted), Luka Magnotta, etc.

Many of us here just aren’t seeing the same noble and righteous standards being applied equally to all accused of criminal wrong-doings. We aren’t seeing the much touted presumption of innocence in defence of other less affluent, accused perpetrators, or the same passionate interest in Canadian jurisprudence for anyone other than the "richest" accused in this specific case. So again, no .. the Bosma case is not really different from hundreds of others, but the main difference others are perceiving is in the unwavering support on behalf of the “rich” accused in this case, the less affluent MS, not so much, and others not related to the case at hand get nada.

 

[SnooperDuper]

But if you ask me, I don't really give a whit for the other accused in this case or in the multitude of other cases before the courts this evening because none of the accused, other than DM, are the grandchildren of aviation legends.

Yes, I have a total affection for the grandchildren of Z-list celebrities too.

Do you follow the Oland saga? Another patricide, this time of a man who held an Order of Canada and was heir to the Moosehead lager fortune.

 

[Tamarind]

If DM had been hanged from a tree on May 12 , 2013 your argument would be valid.

Presumption of innocence is one of the most misunderstood and misused terms

Presumption of guilt is more appropriate .... that is why people are interviewed and questioned .... that is why arrests are made .... that is why charges are laid .... that is why people sit in jail waiting to go to trial .... because there is enough evidence for everybody to "presume they are guilty "

But no sentencing or punishment is handed out until they are found guilty in court.

And until they are found guilty they are treated as though innocent by our legal system ... it does not mean they are innocent , never has .

At one time if a horse went missing and there was a stranger in town the guy could be hanged from a tree before the sun went down because everybody presumed he was guilty .

When the horse was found to have simply wandered off ... the lynch mob realized their mistake and society began to apply the presumption of innocence until the theft could be proven in court ... that was the whole intent of the term

Opinion is noted Arnie.

Presumption of innocence is what it says it is IMO, I don't believe we should be contorting the English language from its literal meaning, I presume the laws weren't made on words that could mean something else ( or were they?) JMO

In regard to the part I have put in bold type, I don't see how there can be enough evidence for everybody, if there were we would not be waiting for a trial. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

Yes, I have a total affection for the grandchildren of Z-list celebrities too.

Do you follow the Oland saga? Another patricide, this time of a man who held an Order of Canada and was heir to the Moosehead lager fortune.

I think you may have taken the post out of context JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't believe we should be contorting the English language from its literal meaning

We should take a fundamentalist, literal interpretation?

 

[SnooperDuper]

BBM

Or, as I said, political. Essentially and intrinsically political. Public interest in this tragic but relatively run-of-the-mill murder was whipped into a frenzy from one end of the country to the other for weeks and months on end. Thus the case(s) came to tick the boxes in the AG's check list as per the quote. Quite amazing, really. MOO. IMHO. MOO. IMO.

Contrary:

Direct Indictments are most frequently used where:[5]

delays in the trial could deprive the accused of the right to be tried within a reasonable time;
the physical or psychological health of witnesses, their age, their safety or that of their relatives, and the difficulties involved in having witnesses testify more than once;
preservation of the integrity of the Crown’s evidence by, for example, protecting informants and ongoing police investigations;
a risk that evidence could be destroyed;
public safety reasons;
the need to avoid multiple proceedings caused, for example, by delays in making arrests;
the accused was wrongly discharged following the preliminary inquiry because of errors, or new evidence has been discovered;
a preliminary inquiry would be unreasonably costly, complex or long, or would be inappropriate because of the nature of the issues or the evidence;
the alleged offence is so controversial that it is in the public interest to try the case as quickly as possible; and
certain guidelines set out additional, broader criteria, such as the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, the public interest, or the fact that the case is notorious or of particular importance to the public, that the direct indictment is the most appropriate procedure in the circumstances, or that there is a special need to expedite proceedings.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi...ice/Informations_and_Indictments#cite_note-31

The AG specifically spoke about the nature of the evidence:

[W]hen this procedure is supported, it's because there is good evidence that the person being accused will become convicted.

So because there is high-quality evidence of the type the court appreciates, there is no point in testing the quality of the evidence further before the trial date other than the review by the Crown and AG? The evidence is "good". Note Wikipedia incorrectly quotes the AG as saying "strong evidence", and someone should report/fix that.

I'm sure that sounds cold and insensitive but when compared, just as a for-instance, to the ho-hum investigation over a decade or more to the brutal murders of dozens of girls at "Piggie's Palace" or the investigations into numerous missing persons and suspected homicides in the RCMP files for New Brunswick alone, most of whom don't even rate a reference here, it's hard to understand why these victims are less worthy of public concern than the victims in this case. MOO. IMHO.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/prog_services/unsolved_crimes-crimes_non_resolus/index-eng.htm

Where were the local and national all points searches for the murderers of these persons? Where were the nationally televised memorials? Why are these victims marginalized, the loss of their lives and the failure to apprehend their murderers of no "particular importance to the public"? Just wondering. MOO. IMHO. etc

Sorry about the circular logic. What can I say. A rant is a rant. MOO.

TB was linked into a large family and the larger community, and was a publicly known entrepreneur/businessman/business owner, which means he started out well known, with a lot of supporters.

Compare with even the (non-murderous) death of localized Canadian aviation legend, some guy I'd never heard of before, CM. WM spent $30k memorializing him, but as for who else cared...well there were a few posts on social media about CM being a character but not a huge number of people patting their heart over him. CM may have even rubbed some people the wrong way, and left them feeling taken advantage of rather than with warm memories. They say if you can't say anything nice...well some people did anyway.

When WM died it took some people some time to figure that out. I don't think he was hugely socially connected, because then it would have been an outrage for his son to hold a memorial not everyone got to go to, if he was.

Some people are still wondering if LB has died.

I suspect that TB's reputation, reliability/dependability/predictability and participation in a large family, his church, the business community and the larger community meant he was widely known and liked by a lot of people.

Some people say that for others to care about you, you must first care about others, and I think TB did that, and that is why people cared so much when he was lost. IMO.

 

[Tamarind]

Contrary:



The AG specifically spoke about the nature of the evidence:



So because there is high-quality evidence of the type the court appreciates, there is no point in testing the quality of the evidence further before the trial date other than the review by the Crown and AG? The evidence is "good". Note Wikipedia incorrectly quotes the AG as saying "strong evidence", and someone should report/fix that.

Strange how these typos occur don't you think?

TB was linked into a large family and the larger community, and was a publicly known entrepreneur/businessman/business owner, which means he started out well known, with a lot of supporters.

Where does it say he had a large family? I haven't read that. I do remember SB saying that about 30 people were helping from church. ( I can try to find the link but it has been posted before) 30 is not a large community IMO - or a lot of supporters. The supporters accrued after the media had gone into full swing and brought the case to the fore. JMO

Compare with even the (non-murderous) death of localized Canadian aviation legend, some guy I'd never heard of before, CM. WM spent $30k memorializing him, but as for who else cared...well there were a few posts on social media about CM being a character but not a huge number of people patting their heart over him. CM may have even rubbed some people the wrong way, and left them feeling taken advantage of rather than with warm memories. They say if you can't say anything nice...well some people did anyway.

Speaking ill of the dead, whoever they were is never a good idea JMO

When WM died it took some people some time to figure that out. I don't think he was hugely socially connected, because then it would have been an outrage for his son to hold a memorial not everyone got to go to, if he was.

Without knowing anything about the extended Millard family and any social connections, its difficult to make a judgement about the memorial or the obits IMO JMO

Some people are still wondering if LB has died.

Yes I am not convinced she is dead, based on the evidence or rather the lack of evidence. JMO

I suspect that TB's reputation, reliability/dependability/predictability and participation in a large family, his church, the business community and the larger community meant he was widely known and liked by a lot of people.

Yes, basing that on the words spoken by SB I would say that is a fair analogy of what was said. IMO

Some people say that for others to care about you, you must first care about others, and I think TB did that, and that is why people cared so much when he was lost. IMO.

I think people who genuinely care about others, care about EVERYONE. They take the time to think things through, give the benefit of the doubt, don't make fast judgements and are never swayed by negativity of others, from the media or from anyone. They usually try to rise above the swirl of judgmentalism and character assassinations JMO

 

[Tamarind]

We should take a fundamentalist, literal interpretation?

What do you suppose that would be in regard to "Presumption of Innocence" ?

 

[Carli]

Contrary:



The AG specifically spoke about the nature of the evidence:



So because there is high-quality evidence of the type the court appreciates, there is no point in testing the quality of the evidence further before the trial date other than the review by the Crown and AG? The evidence is "good". Note Wikipedia incorrectly quotes the AG as saying "strong evidence", and someone should report/fix that.



TB was linked into a large family and the larger community, and was a publicly known entrepreneur/businessman/business owner, which means he started out well known, with a lot of supporters.

Compare with even the (non-murderous) death of localized Canadian aviation legend, some guy I'd never heard of before, CM. WM spent $30k memorializing him, but as for who else cared...well there were a few posts on social media about CM being a character but not a huge number of people patting their heart over him. CM may have even rubbed some people the wrong way, and left them feeling taken advantage of rather than with warm memories. They say if you can't say anything nice...well some people did anyway.

When WM died it took some people some time to figure that out. I don't think he was hugely socially connected, because then it would have been an outrage for his son to hold a memorial not everyone got to go to, if he was.

Some people are still wondering if LB has died.

I suspect that TB's reputation, reliability/dependability/predictability and participation in a large family, his church, the business community and the larger community meant he was widely known and liked by a lot of people.

Some people say that for others to care about you, you must first care about others, and I think TB did that, and that is why people cared so much when he was lost. IMO.

HTH

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/operations/rebel-with-a-cause-2477

Oh, looks like that WIKI actually says "solid" evidence, not "strong". I think that probably somebody attempted to put two of her comments together. Reportedly, she actually said “The provision is there if there is a solid case and justice will be better served by going directly to trial.” AND "“When this procedure is supported, it’s because there is good evidence that the person that is accused will be convicted.”

 

[Carli]

BBM - We have all thought "outside the box" and have extensively gone over it with a fine tooth comb time and time again. When the pieces of the puzzle are not found "outside the box", they most certainly will be found inside the box. So let me see if I have this right, for your part it's challenging? Otherwise you wouldn't bother following this case?

For me it's about justice for the three murdered victims and their loved ones who have been victimized by these senseless and evil murders FWIW and in case you are wondering.

In the end it's what's inside the box that counts. MOO.

"Challenging." Gosh, when you take one word out of a post almost any context is possible, isn't it? What I said, and you highlighted and underscored was "I've found the depth of research, attention to detail and willingness to think "outside the box" in this forum to have been challenging and incredibly interesting and, frankly, the only reason I bother to continue following this case or this forum.

I did NOT say "I am not interested in justice being served." Thankfully you don't espouse such an absurd idea either.

 

[Carli]

We should take a fundamentalist, literal interpretation?

Sure. Why not?

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1593

presumption of innocence

n. a fundamental protection for a person accused of a crime, which requires the prosecution to prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is opposite from the criminal law in many countries, where the accused is considered guilty until he/ she proves his/her innocence or the government completely fails to prove its case.

Also

presumption

1.the act of presuming.
2.assumption of something as true.
3.belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence.
4.something that is presumed; an assumption.
5.a ground or reason for presuming or believing.
6.Law. an inference required or permitted by law as to the existence of one fact from proof of the existence of other facts.

innocence

noun absence of guilt, blamelessness, exculpation, exoneration, freedom from blame,freedom from guilt, freedom from illegality, guiltlessness, innocency, integritas, sinlessness
Associated concepts: presumption of innocence
Foreign phrases: Omnis indemnatus pro innoxis legibus habetur.Every uncondemned person is regarded by the law as innocent. Quis quis praesumitur bonus; et semper in dubiis pro reo respondendum. Everyone is presumed to be good; and in doubtful cases it should be resolved in favor of the accused. In favorem vitae, libertatis, etinnooentiae, omnia praesumuntur. Every presumption is made in favor of life, liberty, and innocence.

Maybe I misunderstand, though. What do you mean by fundamentalist, literal definition? Fundamentalist as in a religious context? Literal as in a Biblical phrasing or other such usage when interpreted devoid of metaphor? But actually, even taking that approach doesn't present any other definition that I can see. MOO

 

[Juballee]

HTH

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/operations/rebel-with-a-cause-2477

Oh, looks like that WIKI actually says "solid" evidence, not "strong". I think that probably somebody attempted to put two of her comments together. Reportedly, she actually said “The provision is there if there is a solid case and justice will be better served by going directly to trial.” AND "“When this procedure is supported, it’s because there is good evidence that the person that is accused will be convicted.”

Am I naive in thinking that they should have good evidence that the person being accused will be convicted before they even lay charges?

Are there really only a small handful of cases where the evidence is good that the crown will get a conviction?

Shouldn't all the cases be solid before they proceed to trial?

 

[Sillybilly]

What do you suppose that would be in regard to "Presumption of Innocence" ?

from:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption+of+innocence

Presumption of Innocence

A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence ...

from:
http://affordingjustice.com.au/what-does-the-presumption-of-innocence-mean/

What does the presumption of innocence mean?

The presumption of innocence is an important part of our criminal law system. Basically it means that if you are accused of a crime, you don’t have to prove you are innocent. Instead, it is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty. In other words, unless the prosecutor can prove you committed the crime, you are entitled to be acquitted or found “not guilty”. Not only does the prosecutor have to prove you are guilty, they have to prove you are guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Or in it's entirety in the Canadian Constitution:

* In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”.

The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.

http://presscore.ca/nbg/?x=entry:entry090521-155623

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

 

[Alethea Dice]

Am I naive in thinking that they should have good evidence that the person being accused will be convicted before they even lay charges?

Are there really only a small handful of cases where the evidence is good that the crown will get a conviction?

Shouldn't all the cases be solid before they proceed to trial?

Apparently not, since only 64% of criminal cases in Canada end up with a guilty verdict, or 56% found guilty in just Ontario. Or if you want to just talk homicide cases, it drops down to only 47% in Canada that are found guilty. Sure more than 47% may actually be guilty, but it doesn't say a lot for the evidence being good enough to get a conviction.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11646-eng.htm#a9

 

[Carli]

from:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption+of+innocence

There are essential and primary differences in the fundamentals of US and Canadian law and practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate