3 ms·

> Do you think it's fair that you were able to greatly reduce your punishment, not for doing something to mitigate your crime or reduce your chances of reoffend

> Do you think it's fair that you were able to greatly reduce your punishment, not for doing something to mitigate your crime or reduce your chances of reoffending or anything like that, but merely for making things more convenient for the government? As I mentioned in another comment, I don't believe I got my sentence reduced significantly (if at all) by accepting the plea. My sentence was only 15 days, and my lawyer told me it was unlikely that I'd get more than that in a jury trial. The reduction in time was time saved not being stuck in jail for a trial to run its course. > And especially, do you think it's fair that you were able to do this while someone in a similar situation who is actually innocent would have to risk substantially greater punishment if they wanted to prove their case? No, I definitely don't think that. As I mentioned in another comment, I think it would be a really good idea to put a maximum sentence length across the board on all plea agreements, regardless of the severity of the crime. I also think that it should not be permissible to lower the severity of the charges for the purposes of a plea. If a reduction of charges is offered in a plea, it should automatically be applied to a jury trial as well. Edit: Also worth mentioning, the judge rejected my blind plea (a plea of guilty with no agreement in place with the prosecution) at the first hearing on what I believe was the fourth day of my confinement. He told me he wanted me to be fully informed what my sentence could be before I plead down. I'm not sure why I'm mentioning this, but it seems relevant.

mikeash 11y ago
The difference between being held in jail awaiting trial and being held in jail after being sentenced may have legal significance, but I don't think the distinction is very important for this question. The fact remains that an innocent person who chose to fight for his innocence would have been imprisoned longer than you were, and that you were able to greatly reduce the term of your imprisonment, not for doing anything to make up for your crime, but merely for giving the government less hassle. I don't understand how your proposal for a maximum sentence length would make things any more fair in a case like yours. The fact is that an innocent person in your position would be faced with a choice: either plead guilty and be falsely convicted of a crime but suffer less, or fight for their innocence and suffer more. Meanwhile you, an actually guilty person, were offered a much easier choice. I do not see any part of this as an argument for why plea bargaining should exist. It looks to me like a perfect example of why it shouldn't, and also provides a compelling argument for why trials need to happen more quickly in cases where the accused cannot be released on bail.
wtbob 11y ago
> The reduction in time was time saved not being stuck in jail for a trial to run its course. 'Excessive bail shall not be required' —Amendment VIII, U.S. Constitution Given that your crime was such a small matter (judging by the sentence), then bail should have probably been nothing, or a token amount.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
  It was a relatively token amount, but as I said, I was reallllly poor, and I knew I was going to have to pay a sizeable fine. Because I was out of work, I had to make the choice not to pay that token amount.

mikeash 11y ago

The difference between being held in jail awaiting trial and being held in jail after being sentenced may have legal significance, but I don't think the distinction is very important for this question. The fact remains that an innocent person who chose to fight for his innocence would have been imprisoned longer than you were, and that you were able to greatly reduce the term of your imprisonment, not for doing anything to make up for your crime, but merely for giving the government less hassle. I don't understand how your proposal for a maximum sentence length would make things any more fair in a case like yours. The fact is that an innocent person in your position would be faced with a choice: either plead guilty and be falsely convicted of a crime but suffer less, or fight for their innocence and suffer more. Meanwhile you, an actually guilty person, were offered a much easier choice. I do not see any part of this as an argument for why plea bargaining should exist. It looks to me like a perfect example of why it shouldn't, and also provides a compelling argument for why trials need to happen more quickly in cases where the accused cannot be released on bail.

wtbob 11y ago

> The reduction in time was time saved not being stuck in jail for a trial to run its course. 'Excessive bail shall not be required' —Amendment VIII, U.S. Constitution Given that your crime was such a small matter (judging by the sentence), then bail should have probably been nothing, or a token amount.

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
It was a relatively token amount, but as I said, I was reallllly poor, and I knew I was going to have to pay a sizeable fine. Because I was out of work, I had to make the choice not to pay that token amount.