5 ms·

> 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 t

by 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.
    - crunchatized 8y ago
      People's inability to afford bail isn't an argument for plea bargains, that's an argument for letting people go on their own recognizance and abolishing cash bail, instead of keeping half a million unconvicted people in American jails. Objecting to one criminal justice reform because it might exacerbate how the criminal justice system is also completely unfair in another, equally terrible way isn't very convincing, when you could actually be advocating to eliminate both problems. And hey, no more innocent people railroaded into guilty pleas like they are under the current system. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-peo...
      - slg 8y ago
        After rereading my comment, I did kind of garble my point. I wasn't meaning to imply that bail is an argument in support of pleas in general. My point was that you can't change part of a system without thinking of the possible effects. Removing the plea system without a plan how to handle the roughly 10 fold increase in criminal trials or how that increase might affect people awaiting trial is like removing a leg of a table without considering how stable it would be with three legs. When proposing a reform you should either be practical, like reducing maximum sentences, or at least holistic if the reforms are impractical. Arguments for simply removing the plea system without considering how it would affect courts or bail is neither practical nor holistic.
    - 8y ago

by rlpb 8y ago

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.
  - crunchatized 8y ago
    People's inability to afford bail isn't an argument for plea bargains, that's an argument for letting people go on their own recognizance and abolishing cash bail, instead of keeping half a million unconvicted people in American jails. Objecting to one criminal justice reform because it might exacerbate how the criminal justice system is also completely unfair in another, equally terrible way isn't very convincing, when you could actually be advocating to eliminate both problems. And hey, no more innocent people railroaded into guilty pleas like they are under the current system. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-peo...
    - slg 8y ago
      After rereading my comment, I did kind of garble my point. I wasn't meaning to imply that bail is an argument in support of pleas in general. My point was that you can't change part of a system without thinking of the possible effects. Removing the plea system without a plan how to handle the roughly 10 fold increase in criminal trials or how that increase might affect people awaiting trial is like removing a leg of a table without considering how stable it would be with three legs. When proposing a reform you should either be practical, like reducing maximum sentences, or at least holistic if the reforms are impractical. Arguments for simply removing the plea system without considering how it would affect courts or bail is neither practical nor holistic.
  - 8y ago