6 ms·

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 sentenc

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.
      - slg 8y ago
        You seem to be focused on the idea of fairness in the justice system, so let me try to rephrase part of the problem here. Without the plea system the justice system would grind to a crawl as there would be no incentive for anyone to ever admit guilt. That would lead to innocent people sitting behind bars for even longer as they await a trial because they either weren't offered bail or couldn't afford it. Much less has to go wrong for those people compared with the numerous failures that would need to result for an innocent person to be convicted and sentenced.
- PHGamer 8y ago
  the real root of the problem is i cant think of a single crime where you should be behind bars for 30 years. if your going to take away someones life why not just shoot them.
  - slg 8y ago
    http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/innocent-baltimore-man-released-after-30-years-in-jail http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/innocent-baltimore-man-re...
  - ergothus 8y ago
    I've always been amused by police procedurals where they are like "it's 15 to life, but if you cooperate we can take the death penalty off of the table". I mean, I'm sure at the moment of death risk the ultimate FOMO kicks in, but in the abstract? The rest of my life in prison sounds a lot worse when it's a long life rather than a still-long-to-experience-but-overall-short one. Always felt like a terrible motivation tactic.
bena 8y ago
There's that as well. I hadn't thought about that when I posted.

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.
    - slg 8y ago
      You seem to be focused on the idea of fairness in the justice system, so let me try to rephrase part of the problem here. Without the plea system the justice system would grind to a crawl as there would be no incentive for anyone to ever admit guilt. That would lead to innocent people sitting behind bars for even longer as they await a trial because they either weren't offered bail or couldn't afford it. Much less has to go wrong for those people compared with the numerous failures that would need to result for an innocent person to be convicted and sentenced.
PHGamer 8y ago
the real root of the problem is i cant think of a single crime where you should be behind bars for 30 years. if your going to take away someones life why not just shoot them.
- slg 8y ago
  http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/innocent-baltimore-man-released-after-30-years-in-jail http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/innocent-baltimore-man-re...
- ergothus 8y ago
  I've always been amused by police procedurals where they are like "it's 15 to life, but if you cooperate we can take the death penalty off of the table". I mean, I'm sure at the moment of death risk the ultimate FOMO kicks in, but in the abstract? The rest of my life in prison sounds a lot worse when it's a long life rather than a still-long-to-experience-but-overall-short one. Always felt like a terrible motivation tactic.

bena 8y ago

There's that as well. I hadn't thought about that when I posted.