6 ms·

A well-functioning criminal justice system should always have a high conviction rate, because part of the police and state prosecution service's job is to ensur

A well-functioning criminal justice system should always have a high conviction rate, because part of the police and state prosecution service's job is to ensure that they only bring charges and fight cases they think they can win. Given they're experts in criminal prosecution, you would expect them to get it right 90-95% of the time. But there's still a lot of variation in how you get to that situation. E.g. how willing are the police to investigate cases that have a low chance of conviction? How willing are they to coerce confessions or fabricate evidence? Is sentencing and plea-bargaining designed to encourage early guilty pleas regardless of innocence? At trial, how willing are judges to lead juries towards a guilty verdict? These kind of issues are at play in every country's criminal justice system, but, for a modern democracy, Japan seems to have a particularly pervasive culture of police intimidation and coercion.

ransom1538 9y ago
Plea-bargaining is totally insane. Quick example, you own a gun in your Florida home. Unbeknownst to you, your (idiot) cousin smokes a joint in the driveway before leaving and leaves joint on your table. Neighbors call police, they enter your home (based on smell) and find a gun and a joint. You are looking at 10 YEARS in federal jail [i] as a prohibited gun owner, a few months in county (for the joint), possibly some time in state prison for child endangerment (kids were home), and the CPS took your kids that day. IT DOES NOT MATTER if your are innocent or guilty you will do a plea deal. No jury for you. US prosecutors rely on extremely harsh possible sentences to bully innocent defendants into jail. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2...
- SilasX 9y ago
  I don’t get how you see plea bargaining as the evil thing in that scenario. To me, the shock of that scenario comes from the extremely harsh penalties, often for crimes that can stem from negligence. If you believed the possible punishment were indeed proportional to the crime, would you still be outraged at plea bargaining? And would the same logic apply to any variance reduction strategy (like insurance) or just this one?
  - mcny 9y ago
    > If you believed the possible punishment were indeed proportional to the crime, would you still be outraged at plea bargaining? And would the same logic apply to any variance reduction strategy (like insurance) or just this one? You mean if there was a fine of $1 per domain (per year?) as opposed to possible felony under CFAA to scrape public documents on the Internet? I don't want to get into moral nihilism or whatever we call it but what is a crime? Why are some acts criminal? What makes them different from a civil suit between two parties? Sorry if I sound insane. I may be but the cause is just. Help abolish the CFAA https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa
  - ransom1538 9y ago
    "I don’t get how you see plea bargaining as the evil thing in that scenario." Because you don't get one of the fundamental constitutional rights our country was founded on: The right to a jury. Prosecutors should be forced to face a jury.
    - SilasX 9y ago
      And you don’t get that that’s a right, not an obligation. A right can be waived (in return for a consideration), an obligation can’t. In a plea bargain, the state is recognizing your right to a trial; that’s why they can’t just give you the punishment directly! They are offering a reduced sentence in exchange for you waiving that right. At no point is the right not recognized, unless you think that’s what happens with guilty pleas too. (Edited to provide explanation rather than funny but confusing skit.)
      - gozur88 9y ago
        The problem is the prosecutors have an incentive to rack up as many patently ridiculous charges as possible in an effort to strengthen their position in the plea bargain. Something relatively minor balloons into the possibility you could spend the rest of your life in jail... or you could take the plea and be out in a few years. That effectively removes your right to a jury trial, particularly when the natural human tendency of a juror is to split the baby, i.e. if you get charged with 60 counts they're unlikely to find you "not guilty" on all 60 regardless of circumstances. I agree with OP - if the crime isn't important enough to take to trial, it's not important enough to prosecute. Furthermore I would add judges should sanction prosecutors for overcharging. If I have $100k in cash I put into the bank in $5k increments that's one charge of Structuring with a potential five year sentence - I shouldn't be looking at twenty charges with a century in jail if I refuse the plea.
- kyleblarson 9y ago
  'your Florida home' is problem number 1.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    My entire home regardless of value is protected from creditors in Florida (even if you sue me!), whereas you’re on the hook for your spouses medical bills even after their death in California (community property state). Will take my Florida chances :) (This is also why so many wealthy individuals make it their state of residence, besides no state income tax)
- crpatino 9y ago
  IANAL, and certainly not an American one, but it seems to me that your problem in this hypothetical case, is the criminalization of common human flaws. Let's dissect the case: 1. Assuming all prosecutor's pretenses where true, the man was never seen using a gun while intoxicated, merely owning one where you are disqualified. A proper penalty should be the seizure of your gun, plus a heavy fine for lying in your gun license application, which should also be cancelled until you agree to go to a detox program. Penal justice should not even get involved in the case. 2. Even if you had somehow managed to fire your gun while under influence, unless you have caused injuries or property damage to someone (in which case, there are already separate laws to deal with that), 10 years is also way too much. I'd do much better to society if you were given a 6-12 month sentence that can then be commuted for community service, preferably in some area of your expertise that can help make your town a better place to be. No point in dragging you to jail unless you further violate your parole/community service deal. 3. What's the point of seizing people's children? Millions of kids have idiots for parents, becase there are millions os idiots; and yes, some of those kids will end up injured because of their parent's idiocity. There's no way around that. On the other hand, it is evil to take into custody a felon's child because said child probably has another non-felon parent, or other close relatives that can take care of him/her. Decisions to make a child a ward of the State should be a slow and deliberate one, and kids who end up injured because of this hesitation should be considered the less of all evils, because there's so much potential for abuse otherwise.
- ec109685 9y ago
  This is a great comment. You did miss one requirement to fall into federal jurisdiction: C. The firearm or ammunition was transported across a state line at any
  - ransom1538 9y ago
    Close. But no. For you to be caught with clause C the prosecutor just needs to prove the gun wasn't manufactured in your state. Example you own a glock pistol (popular), what you would find is fine print like: "Glocks for sale in the U.S. are made in Austria and assembled in Smyrna GA." Reading that as a defendant would be depressing since it extremely easy to prove - just getting a fax from the company would end it. Then if you look at ammunition, "9mm - 115 Grain FMJ - Tula - 500 Rounds" (as a popular example) you would see fine print such as: "TulAmmo is sourced from eastern countries like Russia and uses wartime-proven methods of manufacturing and material selection in order to make ammunition as affordable and practical as possible". An attorney's website (i suppose he has experience): "If the firearm in question was manufactured in a state other than the state in which possession or receipt occurred, a jury may, but are not required to, find that it was transported across a state line." [i] [i] http://dnadefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=186&Itemid=39 http://dnadefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view... In all honesty, I think federal prosecutors wont really care about (C) since proving it takes about 10 minutes with a fax machine and they have NEVER seen a case where the gun (and components) and bullets were manufactured in the same state. If they were manufactured in your state I would consider yourself one lucky [expletive].
olalonde 9y ago
> part of the police and state prosecution service's job is to ensure that they only bring charges and fight cases they think they can win That might be the problem then?

ransom1538 9y ago

Plea-bargaining is totally insane. Quick example, you own a gun in your Florida home. Unbeknownst to you, your (idiot) cousin smokes a joint in the driveway before leaving and leaves joint on your table. Neighbors call police, they enter your home (based on smell) and find a gun and a joint. You are looking at 10 YEARS in federal jail [i] as a prohibited gun owner, a few months in county (for the joint), possibly some time in state prison for child endangerment (kids were home), and the CPS took your kids that day. IT DOES NOT MATTER if your are innocent or guilty you will do a plea deal. No jury for you. US prosecutors rely on extremely harsh possible sentences to bully innocent defendants into jail. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2...

SilasX 9y ago
I don’t get how you see plea bargaining as the evil thing in that scenario. To me, the shock of that scenario comes from the extremely harsh penalties, often for crimes that can stem from negligence. If you believed the possible punishment were indeed proportional to the crime, would you still be outraged at plea bargaining? And would the same logic apply to any variance reduction strategy (like insurance) or just this one?
- mcny 9y ago
  > If you believed the possible punishment were indeed proportional to the crime, would you still be outraged at plea bargaining? And would the same logic apply to any variance reduction strategy (like insurance) or just this one? You mean if there was a fine of $1 per domain (per year?) as opposed to possible felony under CFAA to scrape public documents on the Internet? I don't want to get into moral nihilism or whatever we call it but what is a crime? Why are some acts criminal? What makes them different from a civil suit between two parties? Sorry if I sound insane. I may be but the cause is just. Help abolish the CFAA https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa
- ransom1538 9y ago
  "I don’t get how you see plea bargaining as the evil thing in that scenario." Because you don't get one of the fundamental constitutional rights our country was founded on: The right to a jury. Prosecutors should be forced to face a jury.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    And you don’t get that that’s a right, not an obligation. A right can be waived (in return for a consideration), an obligation can’t. In a plea bargain, the state is recognizing your right to a trial; that’s why they can’t just give you the punishment directly! They are offering a reduced sentence in exchange for you waiving that right. At no point is the right not recognized, unless you think that’s what happens with guilty pleas too. (Edited to provide explanation rather than funny but confusing skit.)
    - gozur88 9y ago
      The problem is the prosecutors have an incentive to rack up as many patently ridiculous charges as possible in an effort to strengthen their position in the plea bargain. Something relatively minor balloons into the possibility you could spend the rest of your life in jail... or you could take the plea and be out in a few years. That effectively removes your right to a jury trial, particularly when the natural human tendency of a juror is to split the baby, i.e. if you get charged with 60 counts they're unlikely to find you "not guilty" on all 60 regardless of circumstances. I agree with OP - if the crime isn't important enough to take to trial, it's not important enough to prosecute. Furthermore I would add judges should sanction prosecutors for overcharging. If I have $100k in cash I put into the bank in $5k increments that's one charge of Structuring with a potential five year sentence - I shouldn't be looking at twenty charges with a century in jail if I refuse the plea.
kyleblarson 9y ago
'your Florida home' is problem number 1.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  My entire home regardless of value is protected from creditors in Florida (even if you sue me!), whereas you’re on the hook for your spouses medical bills even after their death in California (community property state). Will take my Florida chances :) (This is also why so many wealthy individuals make it their state of residence, besides no state income tax)
crpatino 9y ago
IANAL, and certainly not an American one, but it seems to me that your problem in this hypothetical case, is the criminalization of common human flaws. Let's dissect the case: 1. Assuming all prosecutor's pretenses where true, the man was never seen using a gun while intoxicated, merely owning one where you are disqualified. A proper penalty should be the seizure of your gun, plus a heavy fine for lying in your gun license application, which should also be cancelled until you agree to go to a detox program. Penal justice should not even get involved in the case. 2. Even if you had somehow managed to fire your gun while under influence, unless you have caused injuries or property damage to someone (in which case, there are already separate laws to deal with that), 10 years is also way too much. I'd do much better to society if you were given a 6-12 month sentence that can then be commuted for community service, preferably in some area of your expertise that can help make your town a better place to be. No point in dragging you to jail unless you further violate your parole/community service deal. 3. What's the point of seizing people's children? Millions of kids have idiots for parents, becase there are millions os idiots; and yes, some of those kids will end up injured because of their parent's idiocity. There's no way around that. On the other hand, it is evil to take into custody a felon's child because said child probably has another non-felon parent, or other close relatives that can take care of him/her. Decisions to make a child a ward of the State should be a slow and deliberate one, and kids who end up injured because of this hesitation should be considered the less of all evils, because there's so much potential for abuse otherwise.
ec109685 9y ago
This is a great comment. You did miss one requirement to fall into federal jurisdiction: C. The firearm or ammunition was transported across a state line at any
- ransom1538 9y ago
  Close. But no. For you to be caught with clause C the prosecutor just needs to prove the gun wasn't manufactured in your state. Example you own a glock pistol (popular), what you would find is fine print like: "Glocks for sale in the U.S. are made in Austria and assembled in Smyrna GA." Reading that as a defendant would be depressing since it extremely easy to prove - just getting a fax from the company would end it. Then if you look at ammunition, "9mm - 115 Grain FMJ - Tula - 500 Rounds" (as a popular example) you would see fine print such as: "TulAmmo is sourced from eastern countries like Russia and uses wartime-proven methods of manufacturing and material selection in order to make ammunition as affordable and practical as possible". An attorney's website (i suppose he has experience): "If the firearm in question was manufactured in a state other than the state in which possession or receipt occurred, a jury may, but are not required to, find that it was transported across a state line." [i] [i] http://dnadefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=186&Itemid=39 http://dnadefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view... In all honesty, I think federal prosecutors wont really care about (C) since proving it takes about 10 minutes with a fax machine and they have NEVER seen a case where the gun (and components) and bullets were manufactured in the same state. If they were manufactured in your state I would consider yourself one lucky [expletive].

olalonde 9y ago

> part of the police and state prosecution service's job is to ensure that they only bring charges and fight cases they think they can win That might be the problem then?