4 ms·

Something away from the scandal itself, non-American here and I don't get plea deals. I mean, normally, a trial can result in acquittal even if the defendant ad

Something away from the scandal itself, non-American here and I don't get plea deals. I mean, normally, a trial can result in acquittal even if the defendant admits their guilt if there's very strong objective evidence(DNA records etc.) disproving it. There has existed previous cases where some new evidence surfaced years after a plea deal and the defendant, previously found guilty, was released. So, why does a plea deal result in no trial at all? Shouldn't there be an, even very hastened, trial even if the defendant pleads guilty? That seems to be result if we only consider the American Justice System and Logic.

jedmeyers 10y ago
A judge has to approve the plea deal, so usually this is a kind of a very hastened trial. Unfortunately sometimes it boils down to the rubber stamping.
Afforess 10y ago
Plea bargaining is the modern equivalent to medieval tortured confessions. There is no incentive to look too closely. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=uclrev http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
The defendant has the option of pursuing a trial. If the defendant loses the trial, there is usually a more severe sentence. The justice system in the US is "adversarial." The product of the process is the verdict. Any official information entered into the public record is a side product, not a primary. In cases where a prosecutor thinks the public information is more important, they have the option of not pursuing a deal.
4yt23623576 10y ago
If you ask someone involved in the court system, they will tell you that plea deals are actually vital within the current court system. The judiciary is, in general, so underfunded in many jurisdictions that it would be simply impossible to try every case. Plea deals lessen the burden on the courts. Obviously, this shouldn't be seen as a defense of plea deals, merely an explanation of one of the incentives that currently exist for them. Properly funding our court systems would remove this incentive.
- talmand 10y ago
  We would also have to do something about piling on stupid charges in an effort to force a plea deal as well.
  - DugFin 10y ago
    There should probably be a restriction on offering plea bargains, basically eliminating "plead to a lesser charge". The DA should be allowed to prosecute no more than the charges they want you to plead to. Piling on charges is coercion, threatening a good chance of ruining your entire life vs. a guarantee of only ruining a little of it.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      In that case there's no incentive to take the deal, especially for serious crimes.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
frandroid 10y ago
American criminal trials are so costly in terms of money and time that the process itself is a form of punishment. Sure, you could go to trial and find yourself not guilty, but then the prosecution files an appeal and you have to keep paying a lawyer. If there's a reasonable chance of you being found guilty, the prosecutor will be happy to strike a reasonable deal with you, so you can get it over with and carry on with your life (and your money). I think something like 90% of cases are resolved through plea bargaining.
- toast0 10y ago
  > Sure, you could go to trial and find yourself not guilty, but then the prosecution files an appeal and you have to keep paying a lawyer. In the US, the prosecution can't appeal a verdict in a criminal trial. In some cases, you could be tried for the same crime in a different jurisdiction though (likely with a different prosecution as well).
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    I believe the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution prevents such things as being tried for the same crime twice...
    - toast0 10y ago
      From skimming on Wikipediea, there are exceptions: you can be tried for the same crime as a federal crime and a state crime if it is criminal in both jurisdictions (although not as a federal crime and a Puerto Rico crime). You can also be tried for a crime multiple times if earlier trials were declared a mistrial (some exceptions apply).
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > you can be tried for the same crime as a federal crime and a state crime if it is criminal in both jurisdictions A federal crime and a state crime, even if based on the same act, are different crimes. (Usually, even if they have similar popular names, with substantially different definitions.) > (although not as a federal crime and a Puerto Rico crime). Puerto Rico is a federal territory, therefore that would be a "federal crime" and a "federal crime". While Puerto Rico may have local government that looks a lot like a state in its relation to the federal government (and which is treated as a state under a lot of federal statutes), Constitutionally it is not a separate sovereignty like a State, but simply an appendage of the Federal government.
SilasX 10y ago
It's the same concept as insurance: it's often better to take a guaranteed loss of X, than 10% chance of a loss of 10X -- or even 8X, due to a loss aversion. So, let's say that you're in a group of 10 people and one of them will suffer an 8X loss, but you don't know who. You each set aside X, and pay 9X to the guy who turns out to take the loss. (Refund of contribution plus 8X.) You pay X for the overhead of managing the arrangement. Boom, you reinvented insurance. There are cases where the evidence is strong, but neither side likes the uncertainty of leaving it up to the trial, so they make the above tradeoff, and save on the costs. As for your question about "why not have a mini-trial anyway", the prosecution is required to disclose their evidence at the allocution, so there (some level) is transparency about the basis for guilt; but if you have to commit to the regular trial with all its procedures and protections, then that defeats most of the purpose. Often, people confusedly moralize about plea bargains, when their real objection is that the government could credibly claim to be able to get an 8X penalty at all, which seems excessive given the facts of the case. Also, not just an American thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Use_in_civil_law_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Use_in_civil_law_...
aidenn0 10y ago
The judge has to sign of on plea deals; for all crimes above a certain level (differs between jurisdictions), you are not allowed to plea guilty while also maintaining your innocence. There are some major issues with this though; there are many people who are likely innocent but plea guilty because they can't afford bail, and if they miss work they will lose their jobs. Plea deals happen a lot because of the sheer volume of criminal cases; from the prosecutors point of view they reduce the variability of outcome, as well as the work needed to get the outcome, which makes it possible to handle a larger caseload. [edit] Also as the paper posted by a sibling comment points out, jury trials in the US are incredibly resource intensive, and it is only in the last century or so that they have become so. 97% of federal convictions are from guilty pleas.
jrochkind1 10y ago
> I mean, normally, a trial can result in acquittal even if the defendant admits their guilt if there's very strong objective evidence(DNA records etc.) disproving it. Curious what country you are in where that's normal. Definitely not in the US. If the defendant admits their guilt, there isn't a trial in the US at all, it's done.

jedmeyers 10y ago

A judge has to approve the plea deal, so usually this is a kind of a very hastened trial. Unfortunately sometimes it boils down to the rubber stamping.

Afforess 10y ago

Plea bargaining is the modern equivalent to medieval tortured confessions. There is no incentive to look too closely. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=uclrev http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

The defendant has the option of pursuing a trial. If the defendant loses the trial, there is usually a more severe sentence. The justice system in the US is "adversarial." The product of the process is the verdict. Any official information entered into the public record is a side product, not a primary. In cases where a prosecutor thinks the public information is more important, they have the option of not pursuing a deal.

4yt23623576 10y ago

If you ask someone involved in the court system, they will tell you that plea deals are actually vital within the current court system. The judiciary is, in general, so underfunded in many jurisdictions that it would be simply impossible to try every case. Plea deals lessen the burden on the courts. Obviously, this shouldn't be seen as a defense of plea deals, merely an explanation of one of the incentives that currently exist for them. Properly funding our court systems would remove this incentive.

talmand 10y ago
We would also have to do something about piling on stupid charges in an effort to force a plea deal as well.
- DugFin 10y ago
  There should probably be a restriction on offering plea bargains, basically eliminating "plead to a lesser charge". The DA should be allowed to prosecute no more than the charges they want you to plead to. Piling on charges is coercion, threatening a good chance of ruining your entire life vs. a guarantee of only ruining a little of it.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    In that case there's no incentive to take the deal, especially for serious crimes.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

frandroid 10y ago

American criminal trials are so costly in terms of money and time that the process itself is a form of punishment. Sure, you could go to trial and find yourself not guilty, but then the prosecution files an appeal and you have to keep paying a lawyer. If there's a reasonable chance of you being found guilty, the prosecutor will be happy to strike a reasonable deal with you, so you can get it over with and carry on with your life (and your money). I think something like 90% of cases are resolved through plea bargaining.

toast0 10y ago
> Sure, you could go to trial and find yourself not guilty, but then the prosecution files an appeal and you have to keep paying a lawyer. In the US, the prosecution can't appeal a verdict in a criminal trial. In some cases, you could be tried for the same crime in a different jurisdiction though (likely with a different prosecution as well).
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  I believe the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution prevents such things as being tried for the same crime twice...
  - toast0 10y ago
    From skimming on Wikipediea, there are exceptions: you can be tried for the same crime as a federal crime and a state crime if it is criminal in both jurisdictions (although not as a federal crime and a Puerto Rico crime). You can also be tried for a crime multiple times if earlier trials were declared a mistrial (some exceptions apply).
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > you can be tried for the same crime as a federal crime and a state crime if it is criminal in both jurisdictions A federal crime and a state crime, even if based on the same act, are different crimes. (Usually, even if they have similar popular names, with substantially different definitions.) > (although not as a federal crime and a Puerto Rico crime). Puerto Rico is a federal territory, therefore that would be a "federal crime" and a "federal crime". While Puerto Rico may have local government that looks a lot like a state in its relation to the federal government (and which is treated as a state under a lot of federal statutes), Constitutionally it is not a separate sovereignty like a State, but simply an appendage of the Federal government.

SilasX 10y ago

It's the same concept as insurance: it's often better to take a guaranteed loss of X, than 10% chance of a loss of 10X -- or even 8X, due to a loss aversion. So, let's say that you're in a group of 10 people and one of them will suffer an 8X loss, but you don't know who. You each set aside X, and pay 9X to the guy who turns out to take the loss. (Refund of contribution plus 8X.) You pay X for the overhead of managing the arrangement. Boom, you reinvented insurance. There are cases where the evidence is strong, but neither side likes the uncertainty of leaving it up to the trial, so they make the above tradeoff, and save on the costs. As for your question about "why not have a mini-trial anyway", the prosecution is required to disclose their evidence at the allocution, so there (some level) is transparency about the basis for guilt; but if you have to commit to the regular trial with all its procedures and protections, then that defeats most of the purpose. Often, people confusedly moralize about plea bargains, when their real objection is that the government could credibly claim to be able to get an 8X penalty at all, which seems excessive given the facts of the case. Also, not just an American thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Use_in_civil_law_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Use_in_civil_law_...

aidenn0 10y ago

The judge has to sign of on plea deals; for all crimes above a certain level (differs between jurisdictions), you are not allowed to plea guilty while also maintaining your innocence. There are some major issues with this though; there are many people who are likely innocent but plea guilty because they can't afford bail, and if they miss work they will lose their jobs. Plea deals happen a lot because of the sheer volume of criminal cases; from the prosecutors point of view they reduce the variability of outcome, as well as the work needed to get the outcome, which makes it possible to handle a larger caseload. [edit] Also as the paper posted by a sibling comment points out, jury trials in the US are incredibly resource intensive, and it is only in the last century or so that they have become so. 97% of federal convictions are from guilty pleas.

jrochkind1 10y ago

> I mean, normally, a trial can result in acquittal even if the defendant admits their guilt if there's very strong objective evidence(DNA records etc.) disproving it. Curious what country you are in where that's normal. Definitely not in the US. If the defendant admits their guilt, there isn't a trial in the US at all, it's done.