7 ms·

i still don't understand why she in first place admitted guilt for something she didn't do? is this really common procedure to admit something you didn't do in

by Markoff 10y ago

i still don't understand why she in first place admitted guilt for something she didn't do? is this really common procedure to admit something you didn't do in US?

panglott 10y ago
False confessions are in fact pretty common. They're most common with juveniles and the mentally ill, for example, or when people are being interrogated for 12-16 hours straight and just need to leave, or when the police lie to suspects. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/issues/falseconfessions/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvicti... https://www.exonerationproject.org/resources/false-confessions/ https://www.exonerationproject.org/resources/false-confessio... The motives for such are pretty easy to see in her story. "In 2015, I failed a background check for a new job because, according to the NYPD, I hadn’t paid the ticket 'I' had gotten for walking in a park in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn after hours, at 10pm. Now there was a misdemeanor on my record, and I had 60 days to clear it up if I wanted to keep the job, which meant trekking to lower Manhattan to criminal court. ...I tried to explain the long history of mix-ups, but the judge wouldn’t listen. He told me I’d have to go to trial, which could take months. By that time the job would be long gone. ...The cop told me to go back in and plead guilty, and then I’d pay a fine and the judge would dismiss the charge and let me off with a warning." She believed the costs to pleading guilty would be lower than fighting the charge.
macintux 10y ago
The penalty for most small crimes is less onerous than the burden of fighting them.
- lotyrin 10y ago
  Unfortunately, this is often true of larger crimes as well.
rtkwe 10y ago
The cost and bother of fighting such minor tickets, especially when the defense is kind of odd like this case, are both way beyond the small fines minor nuisance tickets like this have. Also she tried the first couple times this happened and didn't get anywhere with the judge in court (which isn't too surprising the courts that deal with those tickets have a huge number of cases to deal with every day) and she was able to get the tickets expunged through the system after pleading guilty.
BearGoesChirp 10y ago
For minor cases, it costs less to plea guilty outright. But this often holds true for even major crimes. Plea guilty: Get 90 day suspended sentence, pay fines of $1000. Fight case: Chance of 10 years in prison, pay $10,000 to lawyer guaranteed, chance of fines of $10,000. Add in a prosecutor who is fighting dirty, which would you pick? The problem is that trumped up charges, being offered significantly reduced plea deals, the cost of fighting the charges, and how awful public defenders are (regardless of fault) all combine into a nightmare where very few are willing to demand their right to trial. To me the simplest solution is to end plea deals because they are effectively a punishment for insisting on a right. Cutting the sentence by 90% if someones takes a plea is the same as increasing a sentence by 1000% if someone demands on their right to a trial. This should not be allowed.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I totally agree, plea deals are effectively a punishment for invoking your right to a trial. People should absolutely be allowed to plead guilty, but they shouldn't be rewarded for it. The only argument I've seen for plea deals is that they save time and money. Which I'm sure is true, but is that really sufficient reason to mess with people's right to a trial?
  - BearGoesChirp 10y ago
    Plea deals do save time and money, but at what expense? They allow for courts to try more cases that they would otherwise ignore as insignificant. They allow those who commit major crimes to get off with much lighter sentences (I've read about child sexual abuse cases pleading down to child endangerment, which raises far less flags on a background check). They also allow people to be bludgeoned into accepting charges they are innocent of. I just don't see how people can justify it at all.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    But in any country without plea guilt deal like mine, you have only once choice : the trial with full cost and the possible high sentence. I don't get what you loose with the deal, it's just an additional option.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joshfraser 10y ago
95% of all inmates in the United States never had a trial. Due process is dead. It makes sense to me why someone would plead guilty and take a short plea deal than risk rotting in prison for years on trumped up charges.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Especially when it's fairly standard (and legal) to explicitly threaten longer sentences and harsher charges for daring to bring a case to trial.
aidenn0 10y ago
It's incredibly common for low-level criminal charges, as much of the time they will allow you to plea to a non-criminal offence rather than charging you with a misdemeanor. Even if you figure on a 1-in-1000 chance of being wrongly convicted it is probably not worth the risk of having a criminal charge on your record. I have a number of friends who have done so; the funny thing is even the for ones who had done something wrong, they had not done the thing they plead to. (most strangely is someone who was ticketed for reckless driving, fought it and took a deal for a noise violation; it was the same fine, but no points on the license; their car was definitely not too loud).

by Markoff 10y ago

i still don't understand why she in first place admitted guilt for something she didn't do? is this really common procedure to admit something you didn't do in US?

panglott 10y ago

False confessions are in fact pretty common. They're most common with juveniles and the mentally ill, for example, or when people are being interrogated for 12-16 hours straight and just need to leave, or when the police lie to suspects. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/issues/falseconfessions/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvicti... https://www.exonerationproject.org/resources/false-confessions/ https://www.exonerationproject.org/resources/false-confessio... The motives for such are pretty easy to see in her story. "In 2015, I failed a background check for a new job because, according to the NYPD, I hadn’t paid the ticket 'I' had gotten for walking in a park in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn after hours, at 10pm. Now there was a misdemeanor on my record, and I had 60 days to clear it up if I wanted to keep the job, which meant trekking to lower Manhattan to criminal court. ...I tried to explain the long history of mix-ups, but the judge wouldn’t listen. He told me I’d have to go to trial, which could take months. By that time the job would be long gone. ...The cop told me to go back in and plead guilty, and then I’d pay a fine and the judge would dismiss the charge and let me off with a warning." She believed the costs to pleading guilty would be lower than fighting the charge.

macintux 10y ago

The penalty for most small crimes is less onerous than the burden of fighting them.

lotyrin 10y ago
Unfortunately, this is often true of larger crimes as well.

rtkwe 10y ago

The cost and bother of fighting such minor tickets, especially when the defense is kind of odd like this case, are both way beyond the small fines minor nuisance tickets like this have. Also she tried the first couple times this happened and didn't get anywhere with the judge in court (which isn't too surprising the courts that deal with those tickets have a huge number of cases to deal with every day) and she was able to get the tickets expunged through the system after pleading guilty.

BearGoesChirp 10y ago

For minor cases, it costs less to plea guilty outright. But this often holds true for even major crimes. Plea guilty: Get 90 day suspended sentence, pay fines of $1000. Fight case: Chance of 10 years in prison, pay $10,000 to lawyer guaranteed, chance of fines of $10,000. Add in a prosecutor who is fighting dirty, which would you pick? The problem is that trumped up charges, being offered significantly reduced plea deals, the cost of fighting the charges, and how awful public defenders are (regardless of fault) all combine into a nightmare where very few are willing to demand their right to trial. To me the simplest solution is to end plea deals because they are effectively a punishment for insisting on a right. Cutting the sentence by 90% if someones takes a plea is the same as increasing a sentence by 1000% if someone demands on their right to a trial. This should not be allowed.

mikeash 10y ago
I totally agree, plea deals are effectively a punishment for invoking your right to a trial. People should absolutely be allowed to plead guilty, but they shouldn't be rewarded for it. The only argument I've seen for plea deals is that they save time and money. Which I'm sure is true, but is that really sufficient reason to mess with people's right to a trial?
- BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  Plea deals do save time and money, but at what expense? They allow for courts to try more cases that they would otherwise ignore as insignificant. They allow those who commit major crimes to get off with much lighter sentences (I've read about child sexual abuse cases pleading down to child endangerment, which raises far less flags on a background check). They also allow people to be bludgeoned into accepting charges they are innocent of. I just don't see how people can justify it at all.
- sametmax 10y ago
  But in any country without plea guilt deal like mine, you have only once choice : the trial with full cost and the possible high sentence. I don't get what you loose with the deal, it's just an additional option.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joshfraser 10y ago

95% of all inmates in the United States never had a trial. Due process is dead. It makes sense to me why someone would plead guilty and take a short plea deal than risk rotting in prison for years on trumped up charges.

Bartweiss 10y ago
Especially when it's fairly standard (and legal) to explicitly threaten longer sentences and harsher charges for daring to bring a case to trial.

aidenn0 10y ago

It's incredibly common for low-level criminal charges, as much of the time they will allow you to plea to a non-criminal offence rather than charging you with a misdemeanor. Even if you figure on a 1-in-1000 chance of being wrongly convicted it is probably not worth the risk of having a criminal charge on your record. I have a number of friends who have done so; the funny thing is even the for ones who had done something wrong, they had not done the thing they plead to. (most strangely is someone who was ticketed for reckless driving, fought it and took a deal for a noise violation; it was the same fine, but no points on the license; their car was definitely not too loud).