4 ms·

The vast majority of criminal cases end with people pleading guilty rather than going to trial. This US government page [1] says 90% but I've heard even higher

The vast majority of criminal cases end with people pleading guilty rather than going to trial. This US government page [1] says 90% but I've heard even higher figures from lawyers and other sources. Now, perhaps the police are very good at their jobs and really do get the right guy 90+ of the time (everyone who pleads guilty plus everyone convicted at trial - approximately 60% of cases that go to trial [2]). Or, perhaps the court system has a bias towards finding people guilty. One data point that argues for the latter possibility is that people defended by public defenders are significantly more likely to go to jail than people with a private lawyer. People with a public defender go to jail 88% of the time compared to ~75% for people with a private attorney [3]. To me, the implication is that the skill of your lawyer, and the time your lawyer will spend on your case, has a huge influence on your likelihood of getting convicted. That influence implies to me that the police probably aren't 96+% accurate in getting their man, and that therefore some of the people pleading guilty are doing so to avoid a false conviction. If you look into this, you'll find prosecutors threaten defendants with harsh punishments as a tactic to get them to plead to vastly reduced sentences - e.g. "Take your chance at trial, kid, you'll do ten years for possession with intent to distribute. Or, plead guilty, do six months with two years probation." Prosecutors are incentivized to make these deals because they are evaluated, in part, by conviction rate. 1-http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/criminal-cases http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/cri... 2 - http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2012/12statrpt.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2012/12s... page 14 3 - http://www.pbs.org/kqed/presumedguilty/3.2.1.html http://www.pbs.org/kqed/presumedguilty/3.2.1.html

gnopgnip 9y ago
You are overlooking that the police and the DA both have limited resources and must be selective with what cases they pursue. If one assistant DA can only have four misdemeanor trials a month they aren't going after cases that are 50/50. In a high population area there is enough crime for the DA to keep a 90% conviction rate by only going after the easiest cases to prove.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  Right. The theoretically most efficient system would see a 100% conviction rate across the board, because everyone from the investigators to the judges executed perfectly and delivered a criminal to sentencing.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Now, perhaps the police are very good at their jobs and really do get the right guy 90+ of the time Far from all arrests even result in charges. So, if most of the police failures are identified by the DA before charges are filed, it would still look this way even if the police false positive rate was high.
indubitable 9y ago
There are a number of reasonable explanations for why those found guilty with public defenders face more severe consequences, even outside the ability to obtain more effective representation. In particular, that is not balancing for the crimes of the accused. Certain crimes are committed disproportionately more often by certain demographics. Burglary, for instance, has the highest recidivism rate there is and is also going to be something engaged in almost exclusively by the sort of individuals that would not have the means to hire private representation. Recidivism is also heavily dependent upon demographics, and once again individuals without means tend to return to crime more often than individuals with means. While each judge has their own 'style' of sentencing, in general an individual they believe less likely to return to crime is more likely to be sentenced to probation, than an individual who they see as more likely to return to crime. Another reason prosecutors are incentivized to make (and accept) plea deals is because if every accused in the US demanded a trial by jury, our entire justice system would collapse in on itself which would necessitate immediate reform. We don't have anywhere near the resources to actually handle all the people we arrest and charge if they actually attempted to defend themselves. Kind of interesting in that in a way it's like a nationwide prisoner's dilemma.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  You just described the implicit racism in the system and why white people get softer punishments because they evoke empathy from the judge. Yes, the system needs immediate reform, such as ending the "war of drugs" and not criminalizing being poor or brown. If the US stopped persecuting phony crimes, it could afford to prosecute real crimes.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    There are definitely problems dealing with race in the judicial system, but I think the comment above was focusing on economic disparities rather than race. Not all justice systems are the same, some States and even cities have much better systems than others. Saying the entire system is flawed goes too far. The system is very imperfect but fixable.
nordsieck 9y ago
> people defended by public defenders are significantly more likely to go to jail than people with a private lawyer It has long been acknowledged that poverty is correlated with both criminal activity and conviction. Just mentioning this does not make it a causal relationship.
- ljf 9y ago
  And how has it been acknowledged? Through the courts? If so then see above...
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Sure, so we'd expect the class of people who would hire a lawyer to be disproportionately represented in jail. This statistic though is about people who are being defended at trial (or in the judicial system) and the rate at which they go to prison. In other words, even if there were a million people defended by public defender and only a thousand by private lawyers, comparing the likelihood for each class to go to prison is still informative.
rayiner 9y ago
It’s not so much that the police are so good at their jobs but that they focus on easy cases, either through sting operations or possession crimes. It might be hard to prove that a gang member committed a particular robbery, but if you found him with a gun when you went to serve your arrest warrant (this happens all the time), then it’s a slam dunk to charge him with the robbery and felon-in-possession. The average sentence on the FIP is like six years, probably more than the robbery As to people with lawyers having better success: people who can afford lawyers tend not to commit crimes that are easy to prove. They’ll disproportionately be charged with white collar crimes, where the difference between legal and illegal conduct often could be what the accused was thinking when he took a certain action.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Thoughts on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4? You've argued over the years that the justice system is in fact a justice system, not merely a legal system. In other words, you believe it's mostly fair. I feel like I'm probably misrepresenting your position. But the overall point is that many of your comments carry a tone of "Well, there's a logical basis for why the courts work this way." I've been trying to square your experience with anecdotal evidence, which seems to universally agree that the system is stacked against you. Those who go to court with a public defender are doomed. In case you happen to enjoy that video, there's another on bail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU One of my worst fears is being accused of some kind of crime, like cybercrime or anything else. I've seen how HN and Reddit treat the accused. I've done it myself: I know that the point of an indictment is to indict someone, yet when I read FBI testimony stating that the founder of Silk Road hired hitmen, I start to feel differently about him. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15414170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15414170 As cheesy as it sounds, I care about being honorable. I'd never engage in ransomware or embezzlement or anything else, let alone hurt anybody. But I know that if someone were to accuse me of those things, people would automatically think less of me, regardless of whether I did it or not. And that's why it's terrifying. Especially for those without money. So I thought I'd ask you to please justify this system. Fundamentally, morally: is it sound? The fact that 95% of cases end in plea deals, and that N% of that subset didn't commit any crimes -- should we feel ok with that? Yet on the flipside, it seems to work, and we seem to live in a pretty decent and free society. I'm not sure how much or little we should credit the courts for that. The reason I'm asking you in particular is because you're one of a few people on HN with enough experience to give a thoughtful answer. You've been involved with it, and you know the territory.

gnopgnip 9y ago

You are overlooking that the police and the DA both have limited resources and must be selective with what cases they pursue. If one assistant DA can only have four misdemeanor trials a month they aren't going after cases that are 50/50. In a high population area there is enough crime for the DA to keep a 90% conviction rate by only going after the easiest cases to prove.

jdmichal 9y ago
Right. The theoretically most efficient system would see a 100% conviction rate across the board, because everyone from the investigators to the judges executed perfectly and delivered a criminal to sentencing.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Now, perhaps the police are very good at their jobs and really do get the right guy 90+ of the time Far from all arrests even result in charges. So, if most of the police failures are identified by the DA before charges are filed, it would still look this way even if the police false positive rate was high.

indubitable 9y ago

There are a number of reasonable explanations for why those found guilty with public defenders face more severe consequences, even outside the ability to obtain more effective representation. In particular, that is not balancing for the crimes of the accused. Certain crimes are committed disproportionately more often by certain demographics. Burglary, for instance, has the highest recidivism rate there is and is also going to be something engaged in almost exclusively by the sort of individuals that would not have the means to hire private representation. Recidivism is also heavily dependent upon demographics, and once again individuals without means tend to return to crime more often than individuals with means. While each judge has their own 'style' of sentencing, in general an individual they believe less likely to return to crime is more likely to be sentenced to probation, than an individual who they see as more likely to return to crime. Another reason prosecutors are incentivized to make (and accept) plea deals is because if every accused in the US demanded a trial by jury, our entire justice system would collapse in on itself which would necessitate immediate reform. We don't have anywhere near the resources to actually handle all the people we arrest and charge if they actually attempted to defend themselves. Kind of interesting in that in a way it's like a nationwide prisoner's dilemma.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
You just described the implicit racism in the system and why white people get softer punishments because they evoke empathy from the judge. Yes, the system needs immediate reform, such as ending the "war of drugs" and not criminalizing being poor or brown. If the US stopped persecuting phony crimes, it could afford to prosecute real crimes.
- speedplane 9y ago
  There are definitely problems dealing with race in the judicial system, but I think the comment above was focusing on economic disparities rather than race. Not all justice systems are the same, some States and even cities have much better systems than others. Saying the entire system is flawed goes too far. The system is very imperfect but fixable.

nordsieck 9y ago

> people defended by public defenders are significantly more likely to go to jail than people with a private lawyer It has long been acknowledged that poverty is correlated with both criminal activity and conviction. Just mentioning this does not make it a causal relationship.

ljf 9y ago
And how has it been acknowledged? Through the courts? If so then see above...
ImSkeptical 9y ago
Sure, so we'd expect the class of people who would hire a lawyer to be disproportionately represented in jail. This statistic though is about people who are being defended at trial (or in the judicial system) and the rate at which they go to prison. In other words, even if there were a million people defended by public defender and only a thousand by private lawyers, comparing the likelihood for each class to go to prison is still informative.

rayiner 9y ago

It’s not so much that the police are so good at their jobs but that they focus on easy cases, either through sting operations or possession crimes. It might be hard to prove that a gang member committed a particular robbery, but if you found him with a gun when you went to serve your arrest warrant (this happens all the time), then it’s a slam dunk to charge him with the robbery and felon-in-possession. The average sentence on the FIP is like six years, probably more than the robbery As to people with lawyers having better success: people who can afford lawyers tend not to commit crimes that are easy to prove. They’ll disproportionately be charged with white collar crimes, where the difference between legal and illegal conduct often could be what the accused was thinking when he took a certain action.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Thoughts on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4? You've argued over the years that the justice system is in fact a justice system, not merely a legal system. In other words, you believe it's mostly fair. I feel like I'm probably misrepresenting your position. But the overall point is that many of your comments carry a tone of "Well, there's a logical basis for why the courts work this way." I've been trying to square your experience with anecdotal evidence, which seems to universally agree that the system is stacked against you. Those who go to court with a public defender are doomed. In case you happen to enjoy that video, there's another on bail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU One of my worst fears is being accused of some kind of crime, like cybercrime or anything else. I've seen how HN and Reddit treat the accused. I've done it myself: I know that the point of an indictment is to indict someone, yet when I read FBI testimony stating that the founder of Silk Road hired hitmen, I start to feel differently about him. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15414170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15414170 As cheesy as it sounds, I care about being honorable. I'd never engage in ransomware or embezzlement or anything else, let alone hurt anybody. But I know that if someone were to accuse me of those things, people would automatically think less of me, regardless of whether I did it or not. And that's why it's terrifying. Especially for those without money. So I thought I'd ask you to please justify this system. Fundamentally, morally: is it sound? The fact that 95% of cases end in plea deals, and that N% of that subset didn't commit any crimes -- should we feel ok with that? Yet on the flipside, it seems to work, and we seem to live in a pretty decent and free society. I'm not sure how much or little we should credit the courts for that. The reason I'm asking you in particular is because you're one of a few people on HN with enough experience to give a thoughtful answer. You've been involved with it, and you know the territory.