3 ms·

>"isn't my case an example of why plea bargaining should exist, at least in a limited context? It saved everyone involved time and money." Other than saving mo

by zo1 11y ago

>"isn't my case an example of why plea bargaining should exist, at least in a limited context? It saved everyone involved time and money." Other than saving money/time for some people, how was it a net benefit to the victims (if any), or society in general? Care to elaborate as I'm not quite understanding what you're saying? I don't think I've ever encountered the notion (other than in Law&Order) that the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of punishment. This is traditionally a power held only by judges come sentencing time[1]. Personally, it's akin to the prosecutors acting as judge and jury. You were not judged by your peers, even though you knew you were guilty (and probably everyone around you). But the prosecutor took the role of jury to essentially "blackmail"[1] you using the power of leniency that a judge would have. The system is broken, and we shouldn't have to come to a point where we make such comments or interpretations. The expectation is that laws should be obeyed, and punishment of them is applied equally to all. But what we have here boils down to "equally for all", except "more leniently" for those that don't waste money and time of those involved. [1]. Correct me if I'm wrong historically. [2]. One broad definition of the term blackmail is: "the use of threats or the manipulation of someone's feelings to force them to do something."

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
> Other than saving money/time for some people, how was it a net benefit to the victims (if any), or society in general? The victim received compensation for their injury more quickly than they would have otherwise. Society at large probably did not benefit in any way. It saved me money as the punitive damages were reduced, though I think that part was probably a failing of the system. > This is traditionally a power held only by judges come sentencing time[1]. I believe that's still the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the plea agreement is an offer to the judge re: sentencing, and they are free to reject it if they don't believe the punishment fits the crime. Regarding the rest of your comment, I can respect that opinion. I agree that justice is best served by jury trials, and the coercion in some cases I've read about borders on the sickening. That being said, I think everything, including justice, is a compromise, and I believe that plea bargains serve a valuable (though heavily abused) purpose.
cloverich 11y ago
> Other than saving money/time for some people Time and money are both limited resources, especially in the case of the Criminal Just system. That alone is an argument for its existence. > the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of punishment. IANAL, but believe the judge is the one who decides (e.g. you could potentially plea out and not get the deal offered by the prosecutor). Moreover, if you don't like the bargain you can always roll the dice in the courtroom where you'll face the established punishment for your crime (rather than the reduced one being offered). To be clear, I dont like the system as is either. But I think a speedy trial would probably be impossible without bargaining. Thus I think the only route to a solution (i.e. the one we should perhaps focus on) is: 1. Reduced penalties for various crimes 2. Drug legalization
- mikeash 11y ago
  The limited nature of time and money for the criminal justice system is artificial scarcity. We choose not to fund them adequately, and make up for this by making unfair and unjust arrangements with the accused. The portion of government spending that goes toward courts is not terribly high. If we wanted to and needed to, we could increase it by a huge amount without greatly increasing tax burdens. There is no practical reason we can't give every single accused person a speedy trial. We just don't feel like putting in the effort.
evan_ 11y ago
IANAL but I believe the state's prosecutors decide what to charge you with, and the difference between e.g. Murder and Manslaughter or different degrees of a given crime carry hugely different sentences.

by zo1 11y ago

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago

> Other than saving money/time for some people, how was it a net benefit to the victims (if any), or society in general? The victim received compensation for their injury more quickly than they would have otherwise. Society at large probably did not benefit in any way. It saved me money as the punitive damages were reduced, though I think that part was probably a failing of the system. > This is traditionally a power held only by judges come sentencing time[1]. I believe that's still the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the plea agreement is an offer to the judge re: sentencing, and they are free to reject it if they don't believe the punishment fits the crime. Regarding the rest of your comment, I can respect that opinion. I agree that justice is best served by jury trials, and the coercion in some cases I've read about borders on the sickening. That being said, I think everything, including justice, is a compromise, and I believe that plea bargains serve a valuable (though heavily abused) purpose.

cloverich 11y ago

> Other than saving money/time for some people Time and money are both limited resources, especially in the case of the Criminal Just system. That alone is an argument for its existence. > the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of punishment. IANAL, but believe the judge is the one who decides (e.g. you could potentially plea out and not get the deal offered by the prosecutor). Moreover, if you don't like the bargain you can always roll the dice in the courtroom where you'll face the established punishment for your crime (rather than the reduced one being offered). To be clear, I dont like the system as is either. But I think a speedy trial would probably be impossible without bargaining. Thus I think the only route to a solution (i.e. the one we should perhaps focus on) is: 1. Reduced penalties for various crimes 2. Drug legalization

mikeash 11y ago
The limited nature of time and money for the criminal justice system is artificial scarcity. We choose not to fund them adequately, and make up for this by making unfair and unjust arrangements with the accused. The portion of government spending that goes toward courts is not terribly high. If we wanted to and needed to, we could increase it by a huge amount without greatly increasing tax burdens. There is no practical reason we can't give every single accused person a speedy trial. We just don't feel like putting in the effort.

evan_ 11y ago

IANAL but I believe the state's prosecutors decide what to charge you with, and the difference between e.g. Murder and Manslaughter or different degrees of a given crime carry hugely different sentences.