4 ms·

I don't know that it's necessarily plea bargaining that's the problem so much as pre-trial imprisonment and the bail process. What typically makes plea bargains

I don't know that it's necessarily plea bargaining that's the problem so much as pre-trial imprisonment and the bail process. What typically makes plea bargains so unfair is when the alternative is to sit in prison, lose your job, etc., just waiting for a trial. Talk about leverage.

Grishnakh 10y ago
I have an idea: if you're accused and spend time in jail before trial but then you win your case, the state has to fully compensate you for any financial loss at all that you experience because of your jail stay: lost wages, house or car repossessed (you get a new house or car of at least the brand-new value), etc. If that bankrupts the state, that's OK with me.
- imauld 10y ago
  Compensation in that case could be extremely difficult to calculate. Cutting a check for 3 days lost wages is one thing but figuring out the cost of a month or two long stay is likely impossible. Not only are there lost wages for your time in jail you will likely also lose your job so does the state now pay you $XX/year * avg life expectancy? Even if proven innocent your future prospects could be shot not to mention intangibles like lost relationships, losing pets. Not that I don't think people who are wrongly incarcerated shouldn't be compensated but it's not so cut and dry.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    >Not only are there lost wages for your time in jail you will likely also lose your job so does the state now pay you $XX/year * avg life expectancy? Yes. >Even if proven innocent your future prospects could be shot not to mention intangibles like lost relationships, losing pets. These should be compensated for too. Lost relationships I think are worth a cool $1M. If the state can't afford all this, then they shouldn't put people in jail unless they're really sure they need to.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > you will likely also lose your job so does the state now pay you $XX/year * avg life expectancy? Presumably, once exonerated, you are employable at some level, so replacing your previous income for the rest of your life is probably inappropriate. OTOH, the lost continuity has an ongoing impact that ought to be addressed somehow.
- tkahnoski 10y ago
  I would see this institutionalizing problems we already have were high dollar lawyering from wealthy citizens results in less convictions. This just adds financial disincentive for pursuing highly paid individuals. (Doctors, lawyers, CEOs...) Whereas the state could afford the risk to go after lesser paid citizens. Now the wealthy citizens wouldn't even need to lawyer up.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    I don't see the problem here. Why do highly paid individuals need to be kept in jail at all? Are you worried that some guy accused of embezzlement is going to suddenly turn into a violent offender and hurt someone? If so, then why do you offer him bail? The whole concept of jail is just wrong and outdated. Unless someone is violent, they shouldn't be in jail at all to await trial. It costs taxpayers money and is pointless and destroys the lives of the accused, who are innocent until proven guilty at trial. If they're violent, there must be real evidence that they are, and in that case there should be no bail allowed (and if there's not enough evidence that conviction is a slam-dunk, then let them go until the trial). If there's not enough evidence because the police body-cams "weren't working", that's the police's fault.

Grishnakh 10y ago

I have an idea: if you're accused and spend time in jail before trial but then you win your case, the state has to fully compensate you for any financial loss at all that you experience because of your jail stay: lost wages, house or car repossessed (you get a new house or car of at least the brand-new value), etc. If that bankrupts the state, that's OK with me.

imauld 10y ago
Compensation in that case could be extremely difficult to calculate. Cutting a check for 3 days lost wages is one thing but figuring out the cost of a month or two long stay is likely impossible. Not only are there lost wages for your time in jail you will likely also lose your job so does the state now pay you $XX/year * avg life expectancy? Even if proven innocent your future prospects could be shot not to mention intangibles like lost relationships, losing pets. Not that I don't think people who are wrongly incarcerated shouldn't be compensated but it's not so cut and dry.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >Not only are there lost wages for your time in jail you will likely also lose your job so does the state now pay you $XX/year * avg life expectancy? Yes. >Even if proven innocent your future prospects could be shot not to mention intangibles like lost relationships, losing pets. These should be compensated for too. Lost relationships I think are worth a cool $1M. If the state can't afford all this, then they shouldn't put people in jail unless they're really sure they need to.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > you will likely also lose your job so does the state now pay you $XX/year * avg life expectancy? Presumably, once exonerated, you are employable at some level, so replacing your previous income for the rest of your life is probably inappropriate. OTOH, the lost continuity has an ongoing impact that ought to be addressed somehow.
tkahnoski 10y ago
I would see this institutionalizing problems we already have were high dollar lawyering from wealthy citizens results in less convictions. This just adds financial disincentive for pursuing highly paid individuals. (Doctors, lawyers, CEOs...) Whereas the state could afford the risk to go after lesser paid citizens. Now the wealthy citizens wouldn't even need to lawyer up.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  I don't see the problem here. Why do highly paid individuals need to be kept in jail at all? Are you worried that some guy accused of embezzlement is going to suddenly turn into a violent offender and hurt someone? If so, then why do you offer him bail? The whole concept of jail is just wrong and outdated. Unless someone is violent, they shouldn't be in jail at all to await trial. It costs taxpayers money and is pointless and destroys the lives of the accused, who are innocent until proven guilty at trial. If they're violent, there must be real evidence that they are, and in that case there should be no bail allowed (and if there's not enough evidence that conviction is a slam-dunk, then let them go until the trial). If there's not enough evidence because the police body-cams "weren't working", that's the police's fault.