7 ms·

I think it's something about remorse. Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done. Admitting what you did a

by bena 8y ago

I think it's something about remorse. Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done. Admitting what you did and that you did it shows you at least know it's wrong and that you deserve some punishment. Also those deals come with stipulations and caveats. Sometimes, turning evidence is done in exchange for lighter sentences. Being able to prosecute and jail a worse criminal in exchange for letting off a lesser one. Or there's reoffending clauses. Less jail time but if they reoffend in a certain period, they have to serve the full sentence. Also, you say it should be about how long it would take to rehabilitate a person, that's different for every person. In a crime of passion, where someone accidentally kills someone else, should any jail time be given? It requires a certain set of circumstances. A set that may never be repeated again.

bilbo0s 8y ago
"...I think it's something about remorse. Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse..." Mmm... just, Devil's Advocate. What if the defendant is maintaining innocence because they are innocent?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Perhaps a rephrase which solves your objection: “Maintaining innocence when you know the State has decided you are guilty shows a lack of willingness to subordinate yourself to the State.”
scarface74 8y ago
The prosecution has the full backing of the state and for all intents and purposes has an unlimited budget. The accused often is stuck with an overworked public defender. The odds are against anyone whether innocent or guilty once you’ve been arrested. There have been plenty of instances of dirty cops get caught planting evidence on camera, prosecutors withholding evidence, and striking people of color from juries because they thought they were less likely to convict and (rightfully) who are less trusting of police. Taking all that into account, a known lighter sentence makes more sense than an unknown heavier sentence.
- gregmac 8y ago
  Interesting Twitter thread about why this happens: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1021187217664995328 https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1021187217664...
- ams6110 8y ago
  But they don't have an unlimited budget. There are a certain number of prosecutors working for the county and they all have a certain number of hours in the work week. There is a limit to what they can do. They will not bring a case to trial if they don't feel they have a good chance of conviction. And they will offer pleas deals to reduce their workload. They're not going to waste time on a marginal case.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    A plea bargain and the ability to threaten the accused with long prison sentence means they can get convictions for marginal cases.
  - gowld 8y ago
    What's wrong with our laws and our country if we have so many criminals that we can't afford to prosecute them? We should fix that problem instead of papering over it.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      The problem is our insane drug laws. I don't believe we have enough criminals to have such a high incarceration rate.
fake-name 8y ago
> I think it's something about remorse. Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done. Admitting what you did and that you did it shows you at least know it's wrong and that you deserve some punishment. Yeah, but that hinges entirely under the assumption that the accused is guilty. What if they're legitimately not?
- fastball 8y ago
  Then they still have more options? The existence of plea bargains does not make you more likely to get convicted of a crime you didn't commit if you are pleading innocent.
  - ctjackso 8y ago
    But it's literally a heavily studied question in decision theory, and there are tons of statistics that people are too scared by the potential consequences to fight for their own right, when they know they're innocent. Sure, if you are pleading innocent there's potentially no or a lower effect - but the probability of a defendant pleading innocent is _significantly_ impacted by the existence of plea bargains.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    The problem is the unknowns. Let's say you are wrongly charged with a crime and the evidence is enough that the prosecution is moving forward. The max sentence is 30 years, and you're offered a plea of 2 years. There is a chance the system will utterly fail you, and a chance that the system will correctly find you innocent. You don't know those odds. You only know your fears. And the prosecution has a LOT of tools to raise those fears. Society has given you LOTS of reasons to trust those fears. But one thing you won't have is security that your innocence means you will not be found guilty. 2 years is a major problem, but...marriages have survived that. You'll be around to see your kids/nieces/nephews hit most of their major life milestones, and more importantly, a lot of day-to-day normality of what you call life. 30 years...your life has ended. Every relationship is over, every daily experience, everything you define as you. You have a LOT on the line, and the system...enh, it has very little on the line. What odds of failure of the system do you find worth the risk? If anyone takes a plea deal when they are innocent, they may very well be saving themselves some real pain. Or they may be needlessly damning themselves to life as a (ex)con. We don't know. But that it seems a viable option EVEN WHEN INNOCENT is definitely a problem. Making the system more reliable should definitely happen, but that won't remove the imbalance of incentives.
ergothus 8y ago
> Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done. Yet pleading guilty only because you get a payoff for it doesn't really say anything about your remorse either. Not attacking you or your position (whatever that may be) - I know you're just explaining the reason we have this system, but it's also worth pointing out that said rationale isn't uncontested.
gowld 8y ago
> you say it should be about how long it would take to rehabilitate a person, that's different for every person. This is why parole hearings exist. You don't need to decide the number in advance.
- bena 8y ago
  That is if you aren't jailed without chance for a parole until X years. Do you really think there's a minimum number of years to rehabilitate someone from theft? Vandalism? Murder? If you believe it's solely about how long it takes to rehabilitate people, then sentencing shouldn't exist. Prisons should be run drastically different. And records shouldn't be made public because one of the main causes of recidivism is the stigma you get from being a felon.

by bena 8y ago

bilbo0s 8y ago

"...I think it's something about remorse. Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse..." Mmm... just, Devil's Advocate. What if the defendant is maintaining innocence because they are innocent?

dragonwriter 8y ago
Perhaps a rephrase which solves your objection: “Maintaining innocence when you know the State has decided you are guilty shows a lack of willingness to subordinate yourself to the State.”

scarface74 8y ago

The prosecution has the full backing of the state and for all intents and purposes has an unlimited budget. The accused often is stuck with an overworked public defender. The odds are against anyone whether innocent or guilty once you’ve been arrested. There have been plenty of instances of dirty cops get caught planting evidence on camera, prosecutors withholding evidence, and striking people of color from juries because they thought they were less likely to convict and (rightfully) who are less trusting of police. Taking all that into account, a known lighter sentence makes more sense than an unknown heavier sentence.

gregmac 8y ago
Interesting Twitter thread about why this happens: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1021187217664995328 https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1021187217664...
ams6110 8y ago
But they don't have an unlimited budget. There are a certain number of prosecutors working for the county and they all have a certain number of hours in the work week. There is a limit to what they can do. They will not bring a case to trial if they don't feel they have a good chance of conviction. And they will offer pleas deals to reduce their workload. They're not going to waste time on a marginal case.
- scarface74 8y ago
  A plea bargain and the ability to threaten the accused with long prison sentence means they can get convictions for marginal cases.
- gowld 8y ago
  What's wrong with our laws and our country if we have so many criminals that we can't afford to prosecute them? We should fix that problem instead of papering over it.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The problem is our insane drug laws. I don't believe we have enough criminals to have such a high incarceration rate.

fake-name 8y ago

> I think it's something about remorse. Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done. Admitting what you did and that you did it shows you at least know it's wrong and that you deserve some punishment. Yeah, but that hinges entirely under the assumption that the accused is guilty. What if they're legitimately not?

fastball 8y ago
Then they still have more options? The existence of plea bargains does not make you more likely to get convicted of a crime you didn't commit if you are pleading innocent.
- ctjackso 8y ago
  But it's literally a heavily studied question in decision theory, and there are tons of statistics that people are too scared by the potential consequences to fight for their own right, when they know they're innocent. Sure, if you are pleading innocent there's potentially no or a lower effect - but the probability of a defendant pleading innocent is _significantly_ impacted by the existence of plea bargains.
- ergothus 8y ago
  The problem is the unknowns. Let's say you are wrongly charged with a crime and the evidence is enough that the prosecution is moving forward. The max sentence is 30 years, and you're offered a plea of 2 years. There is a chance the system will utterly fail you, and a chance that the system will correctly find you innocent. You don't know those odds. You only know your fears. And the prosecution has a LOT of tools to raise those fears. Society has given you LOTS of reasons to trust those fears. But one thing you won't have is security that your innocence means you will not be found guilty. 2 years is a major problem, but...marriages have survived that. You'll be around to see your kids/nieces/nephews hit most of their major life milestones, and more importantly, a lot of day-to-day normality of what you call life. 30 years...your life has ended. Every relationship is over, every daily experience, everything you define as you. You have a LOT on the line, and the system...enh, it has very little on the line. What odds of failure of the system do you find worth the risk? If anyone takes a plea deal when they are innocent, they may very well be saving themselves some real pain. Or they may be needlessly damning themselves to life as a (ex)con. We don't know. But that it seems a viable option EVEN WHEN INNOCENT is definitely a problem. Making the system more reliable should definitely happen, but that won't remove the imbalance of incentives.

ergothus 8y ago

> Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done. Yet pleading guilty only because you get a payoff for it doesn't really say anything about your remorse either. Not attacking you or your position (whatever that may be) - I know you're just explaining the reason we have this system, but it's also worth pointing out that said rationale isn't uncontested.

gowld 8y ago

> you say it should be about how long it would take to rehabilitate a person, that's different for every person. This is why parole hearings exist. You don't need to decide the number in advance.

bena 8y ago
That is if you aren't jailed without chance for a parole until X years. Do you really think there's a minimum number of years to rehabilitate someone from theft? Vandalism? Murder? If you believe it's solely about how long it takes to rehabilitate people, then sentencing shouldn't exist. Prisons should be run drastically different. And records shouldn't be made public because one of the main causes of recidivism is the stigma you get from being a felon.