6 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

> 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.
  - slg 8y ago
    The root of the problem here is that innocent people can potentially be convicted. Getting rid of the plea system doesn't change that. It just increases the odds that everyone, both the innocent and guilty, go to trial.
    - rlpb 8y ago
      > Getting rid of the plea system doesn't change that. What it does do is reduce the sentences for wrongly convicted innocents to ones that are reasonable for the crimes that they supposedly committed. If a guilty person who pleads guilty gets two years for a particular crime, why should an innocent person wrongly convicted get twenty years for the same supposed crime?
      - slg 8y ago
        There is nothing to guarantee that if the plea system magically disappeared overnight that both the innocent and guilty would get two years instead of twenty. It therefore sounds like your argument isn't really with the plea system. It is with overly harsh maximum sentences.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > It therefore sounds like your argument isn't really with the plea system. It is with overly harsh maximum sentences. But that is how the plea system operates. That is why the sentences are so long. If the maximum penalty approximated what people are actually sentenced to, the prosecutor would have less leverage in plea bargaining and a much higher percentage of people would go to trial. Or the pleas would have to be more generous which would under-punish actually-guilty people who take the plea -- and reintroduce the incentive for innocent people to plead guilty. The only way to get rid of that incentive is to get rid of plea bargaining. (Which would then allow maximum sentences to be much lower.)
        rlpb 8y ago
        No. The root of my argument is that the plea system causes a disproportionate distortion/inflation of sentences for those wrongly found guilty. Sure, if the plea system disappeared tomorrow, then initially sentences would probably be universally high. But at least wrongly convicted innocents wouldn't be treated more harshly than the guilty. In time, different (probably mainly political) forces would bring down sentences to what society considers acceptable (two years in our example). Even if sentences didn't go down, at least they'd be aligned with society accepts for both guilty and wrongly convicted innocents. In any case, the absolute length of sentences is outside the scope of my argument.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > 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. Yes, it does. You seem to only be considering the effect of your option to enter a plea bargain, and not other people’s option to do so, and the incentives that may create for them when the government has decided to target you.
- mikeash 8y ago
  But it does make you more likely to be convicted of a crime you didn’t commit, which seems like a bad thing.
  - fastball 8y ago
    A likelihood that is 100% informed by a choice you make.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      What’s your point?
      - fastball 8y ago
        100% of innocent people can choose not to take a plea deal. The fact that some innocent people might take plea deals anyway is a way of managing your downside. That seems reasonable.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > 100% of innocent people can choose not to take a plea deal But innocent party A can't choose not to have a third-party B take a plea deal in which testimony that reinforces the prosecution of A is rewarded with a lighter sentence for B than a guilty plea without such testimony would get.
        fastball 8y ago
        So you're saying that plea deals encourage people to lie under oath? That seems like an entirely different problem from innocent people pleading guilty.
        mikeash 8y ago
        You think it’s reasonable to threaten innocent people with long prison terms to convince them to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit?
ninkendo 8y ago
Then we all hope the trial will reveal that they're not guilty? I mean, the court system isn't perfect, but do you have a better idea? What would you do when we a court finds somebody guilty who maintains that they're innocent? If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) If you don't accept the trial's outcome because you can never be 100% sure, then how do you propose to run a criminal justice system?
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  "If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) " Except we know lots of innocent people have been convicted and later (often MUCH later) exonerated. The fallibility of the court system is a strong argument not to load up penalties because someone simply exercised their Constitutional right to a trial.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) No, it doesn't; it seems illogical, I would say, to impose additional punishment for people asserting their Constitutional right to compel the government to prove criminal allegations beyond a reasonable doubt without relying on testimony provided by the accused. It is contrary to the entire idea of a Constitutional right.
- aqme28 8y ago
  >If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) By 10x? No, I don't agree with that.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Can you explain how it follows logically? I don’t see anything resembling a logical argument for that. Seems more like it follows emotionally.
bena 8y ago
Hopefully, if they are innocent, that will bear out in court.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  But are you willing to risk 20 years to prove you're innocent? Assuming 20% of innocent people get convicted are you willing to risk the rest of your life? I've only known 3 people who've been to jail and 2 of the 3 was innocent. Not in a they maintained there innocence way. But in a there was proof they were innocent. They just weren't able to get a hold of that proof until after they were convicted.
  - bena 8y ago
    Never having been faced with that situation, I can't say for sure what I would do with absolute certainty. But. Right now, sitting right here, not having to face such a decision except as a thought experiment I would say that if I were sure of my innocence, I wouldn't consider it a risk. If I were innocent, I would go to trial and expect to be exonerated.

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.
- slg 8y ago
  The root of the problem here is that innocent people can potentially be convicted. Getting rid of the plea system doesn't change that. It just increases the odds that everyone, both the innocent and guilty, go to trial.
  - rlpb 8y ago
    > Getting rid of the plea system doesn't change that. What it does do is reduce the sentences for wrongly convicted innocents to ones that are reasonable for the crimes that they supposedly committed. If a guilty person who pleads guilty gets two years for a particular crime, why should an innocent person wrongly convicted get twenty years for the same supposed crime?
    - slg 8y ago
      There is nothing to guarantee that if the plea system magically disappeared overnight that both the innocent and guilty would get two years instead of twenty. It therefore sounds like your argument isn't really with the plea system. It is with overly harsh maximum sentences.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > It therefore sounds like your argument isn't really with the plea system. It is with overly harsh maximum sentences. But that is how the plea system operates. That is why the sentences are so long. If the maximum penalty approximated what people are actually sentenced to, the prosecutor would have less leverage in plea bargaining and a much higher percentage of people would go to trial. Or the pleas would have to be more generous which would under-punish actually-guilty people who take the plea -- and reintroduce the incentive for innocent people to plead guilty. The only way to get rid of that incentive is to get rid of plea bargaining. (Which would then allow maximum sentences to be much lower.)
      - rlpb 8y ago
        No. The root of my argument is that the plea system causes a disproportionate distortion/inflation of sentences for those wrongly found guilty. Sure, if the plea system disappeared tomorrow, then initially sentences would probably be universally high. But at least wrongly convicted innocents wouldn't be treated more harshly than the guilty. In time, different (probably mainly political) forces would bring down sentences to what society considers acceptable (two years in our example). Even if sentences didn't go down, at least they'd be aligned with society accepts for both guilty and wrongly convicted innocents. In any case, the absolute length of sentences is outside the scope of my argument.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> 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. Yes, it does. You seem to only be considering the effect of your option to enter a plea bargain, and not other people’s option to do so, and the incentives that may create for them when the government has decided to target you.
mikeash 8y ago
But it does make you more likely to be convicted of a crime you didn’t commit, which seems like a bad thing.
- fastball 8y ago
  A likelihood that is 100% informed by a choice you make.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    What’s your point?
    - fastball 8y ago
      100% of innocent people can choose not to take a plea deal. The fact that some innocent people might take plea deals anyway is a way of managing your downside. That seems reasonable.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > 100% of innocent people can choose not to take a plea deal But innocent party A can't choose not to have a third-party B take a plea deal in which testimony that reinforces the prosecution of A is rewarded with a lighter sentence for B than a guilty plea without such testimony would get.
        fastball 8y ago
        So you're saying that plea deals encourage people to lie under oath? That seems like an entirely different problem from innocent people pleading guilty.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        You think it’s reasonable to threaten innocent people with long prison terms to convince them to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit?

ninkendo 8y ago

Then we all hope the trial will reveal that they're not guilty? I mean, the court system isn't perfect, but do you have a better idea? What would you do when we a court finds somebody guilty who maintains that they're innocent? If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) If you don't accept the trial's outcome because you can never be 100% sure, then how do you propose to run a criminal justice system?

jonhendry18 8y ago
"If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) " Except we know lots of innocent people have been convicted and later (often MUCH later) exonerated. The fallibility of the court system is a strong argument not to load up penalties because someone simply exercised their Constitutional right to a trial.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) No, it doesn't; it seems illogical, I would say, to impose additional punishment for people asserting their Constitutional right to compel the government to prove criminal allegations beyond a reasonable doubt without relying on testimony provided by the accused. It is contrary to the entire idea of a Constitutional right.
aqme28 8y ago
>If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.) By 10x? No, I don't agree with that.
mikeash 8y ago
Can you explain how it follows logically? I don’t see anything resembling a logical argument for that. Seems more like it follows emotionally.

bena 8y ago

Hopefully, if they are innocent, that will bear out in court.

JamesBarney 8y ago
But are you willing to risk 20 years to prove you're innocent? Assuming 20% of innocent people get convicted are you willing to risk the rest of your life? I've only known 3 people who've been to jail and 2 of the 3 was innocent. Not in a they maintained there innocence way. But in a there was proof they were innocent. They just weren't able to get a hold of that proof until after they were convicted.
- bena 8y ago
  Never having been faced with that situation, I can't say for sure what I would do with absolute certainty. But. Right now, sitting right here, not having to face such a decision except as a thought experiment I would say that if I were sure of my innocence, I wouldn't consider it a risk. If I were innocent, I would go to trial and expect to be exonerated.