3 ms·

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

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.

mikeash 10y ago
For any individual case, you don't lose by having the option available. But more options doesn't always lead to better outcomes, see the Prisoners' Dilemma for the classic example. In this situation, having lots of plea deals predisposes the system to increase sentences for cases which go to trial, in order to get more plea deals. If every single person gets the harsher "trial" punishment, then there will be pressure to make the punishment fit the crime. When only 6% of people get that one, and 94% get a lighter sentence due to a plea deal, the "trial" punishment can be way worse. For a really obvious and somewhat contrived example of how more options isn't necessarily a good thing, imagine if you could get a discount on your taxes if you agreed never to criticize the government. You don't have to take that choice, and you lose nothing by having it available, but I think most of us would see that program as a really bad thing.
- sametmax 10y ago
  > In this situation, having lots of plea deals predisposes the system to increase sentences for cases which go to trial, in order to get more plea deals. ... > if you could get a discount on your taxes if you agreed never to criticize the government. Ah ok. The problem is not the deal itself, but that the system's goal then lead to utilize the deal in negative ways.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I think that's right. A plea deal in any given case may be OK, but when they're a pervasive part of the system they start to look like a punishment for insisting on a trial.
jdietrich 10y ago
In England, there's no such thing as a plea deal, but a guilty plea is taken into account at sentencing. It's tacitly understood that you'll get a modest reduction in your sentence if you plead guilty, but there's no explicit guarantee. It's enough to induce pleas from the obviously guilty, but it won't sway anyone who stands a chance of winning a trial. The American system is clearly not serving justice, as we saw in the Swartz case. The gulf between plea deals and sentences at trial can only be explained by an intention to coerce innocent men into pleading guilty.
michaelmrose 10y ago
The whole of society loses in so many ways. Forcing a trial to occur ensures that prosecutions cost money, hopefully substantially more than they are able to collect in fines. A functional court system transfers money from society as a whole to fund the necessary punishment of individuals. Each action is a financial loss so its not incentivized to pursue them unless society as a whole benefits enough to justify the cost of the system. A dysfunctional system derives monetary gain from persecuting individuals and thus is incentivized to do so even if society doesn't benefit and in fact even if they aren't guilty. This is exactly what you see in this story. Further people faced with life destroying circumstances aren't rational actors they can be easy to manipulate into a plea with sufficient threats. Having a trial especially in serious matters ensures justice has at least a chance to be done.

mikeash 10y ago

For any individual case, you don't lose by having the option available. But more options doesn't always lead to better outcomes, see the Prisoners' Dilemma for the classic example. In this situation, having lots of plea deals predisposes the system to increase sentences for cases which go to trial, in order to get more plea deals. If every single person gets the harsher "trial" punishment, then there will be pressure to make the punishment fit the crime. When only 6% of people get that one, and 94% get a lighter sentence due to a plea deal, the "trial" punishment can be way worse. For a really obvious and somewhat contrived example of how more options isn't necessarily a good thing, imagine if you could get a discount on your taxes if you agreed never to criticize the government. You don't have to take that choice, and you lose nothing by having it available, but I think most of us would see that program as a really bad thing.

sametmax 10y ago
> In this situation, having lots of plea deals predisposes the system to increase sentences for cases which go to trial, in order to get more plea deals. ... > if you could get a discount on your taxes if you agreed never to criticize the government. Ah ok. The problem is not the deal itself, but that the system's goal then lead to utilize the deal in negative ways.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I think that's right. A plea deal in any given case may be OK, but when they're a pervasive part of the system they start to look like a punishment for insisting on a trial.

jdietrich 10y ago

In England, there's no such thing as a plea deal, but a guilty plea is taken into account at sentencing. It's tacitly understood that you'll get a modest reduction in your sentence if you plead guilty, but there's no explicit guarantee. It's enough to induce pleas from the obviously guilty, but it won't sway anyone who stands a chance of winning a trial. The American system is clearly not serving justice, as we saw in the Swartz case. The gulf between plea deals and sentences at trial can only be explained by an intention to coerce innocent men into pleading guilty.

michaelmrose 10y ago

The whole of society loses in so many ways. Forcing a trial to occur ensures that prosecutions cost money, hopefully substantially more than they are able to collect in fines. A functional court system transfers money from society as a whole to fund the necessary punishment of individuals. Each action is a financial loss so its not incentivized to pursue them unless society as a whole benefits enough to justify the cost of the system. A dysfunctional system derives monetary gain from persecuting individuals and thus is incentivized to do so even if society doesn't benefit and in fact even if they aren't guilty. This is exactly what you see in this story. Further people faced with life destroying circumstances aren't rational actors they can be easy to manipulate into a plea with sufficient threats. Having a trial especially in serious matters ensures justice has at least a chance to be done.