5 ms·

If I did the crime, I would plea, and it's not even close (requisite hedge: assuming that the plea offer is reasonable -- it might not be for a high profile cas

by csa 8y ago

If I did the crime, I would plea, and it's not even close (requisite hedge: assuming that the plea offer is reasonable -- it might not be for a high profile case that the DA wants to try for political points). As I have said elsewhere, when the facts are not as clear, the plea offers tend to contrast less starkly with a court sentence as well. You seem to think that there are a lot of cases where the DA is just making up charges against a totally innocent person. That just happens very rarely. There are some weird domains like CPS/child abuse that have must-try cases for political reasons, but the various actors all know what's going on there and conduct themselves accordingly. Look, IANAL. I am just telling you what my best friend has told me over the past two decades. If you want to learn more about this, go talk to a defense attorney and ask them their opinion on this matter. I think you will be (pleasantly?) surprised at how reasonable the system usually is.

gknoy 8y ago
His point was, what if you DID NOT do the crime? If I were arrested and charged for a crime I did not do, having to choose between 6 months guilty (_and a felon for life_), or the chance of zero-or-20 years would be Very Difficult. On the one hand, I don't have the money to pay for a good attorney -- which means I'm more likely to lose, bankrupt my family, screw any chance of retirement, etc. On the other hand, pleading guilty to a crime which I know I am innocent of rankles me because of the injustice, but it also is the (game theory wise one) choice that gets me back to my family faster. (Of course then, being a felon, good luck getting a job, so my chances of a good life later are also totally messed up.) You're looking at this from the perspective of someone who is guilty, and Might Get Away With it. Of course a plea makes sense there. Try looking at it from the perspective of someone falsely accused, though, whose option is either a public defender or being falsely convicted.
- csa 8y ago
  Serious question, what crime do you think you could get accused of with "slam dunk" level of evidence that you were actually innocent of? It takes some serious mental gymnastics (e.g., your doppelganger commits a crime right as you walk by) or you living in a massively corrupt area. As far as money goes, you can get a publicly appointed attorney that the state pays for if you cannot afford an attorney on your own. Some of these folks are really good, some aren't. That said, if you're totally innocent, no lawyer who has passed the bar should have any trouble getting the charges dropped. Again, DAs don't just sit around trying to frame people for crimes they didn't commit -- they have enough actual work to do.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That said, if you're totally innocent, no lawyer who has passed the bar should have any trouble getting the charges dropped. That's...amusing. > Again, DAs don't just sit around trying to frame people for crimes they didn't commit Mostly not, it's more likely to be child who conceive of the frame and manufacture evidence (both planting physical evidence and falsifying testimonial evidence.) Plenty of groups of cops have been found doing this, sometimes to cover premeditated police crimes, and sometimes to cover for police errors. And sometimes the FBI simply invents entire fields of forensic science so that they can have “experts” testify in their (and state) trials to support the guilt of whomever law enforcement is directed at. The idea that it is trivial for a minimally qualified lawyer to ensure that the factually innocent walk free in America is laughably naive.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    " Again, DAs don't just sit around trying to frame people for crimes they didn't commit" Es a "for example" I suggest that you read about Mike Nifong's (DA on the Duke LaCrosse rape case) actions and his despicable lying. [1] This may seriously change your opinion on the subject. DA's regularily lie and cheat for political gain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
    - csa 8y ago
      I’m very familiar with this case. Note that there obviously was not a slam dunk level of evidence, the defendants were declared innocent, and the DA was disbarred. Sounds like the system works to me (although with undue stress). What percentage of cases do you think are like this? My guess is sub 0.01% — it’s just not that common according to the defense attorneys I know. When it does happen, bar complaints fly. My friend tells me that there definitely are wrongful convictions, but it is often not that the person was innocent of a crime, but that they were convicted of the wrong charge. As far as I am concerned, these types of cases seem to be very much the exception rather than the rule — no system is perfect, and I am fully aware of that. I have said elsewhere that a corrupt district or DA is a caveat to my stance. Ditto with high profile “must try” cases (I was a juror in one of those). That was a district with a corrupt DA — it happens. The cool thing to me is that the dude was disbarred — the system worked. I will also add that I think universities interpret rules far too generously (more like guilty until proven innocent), and I don’t agree with that at all, but that does not always become a legal matter. When it does, it is often a must-case for political reasons, and plea deals getnwokky then. I’ve said all of this elsewhere.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by csa 8y ago

gknoy 8y ago

His point was, what if you DID NOT do the crime? If I were arrested and charged for a crime I did not do, having to choose between 6 months guilty (_and a felon for life_), or the chance of zero-or-20 years would be Very Difficult. On the one hand, I don't have the money to pay for a good attorney -- which means I'm more likely to lose, bankrupt my family, screw any chance of retirement, etc. On the other hand, pleading guilty to a crime which I know I am innocent of rankles me because of the injustice, but it also is the (game theory wise one) choice that gets me back to my family faster. (Of course then, being a felon, good luck getting a job, so my chances of a good life later are also totally messed up.) You're looking at this from the perspective of someone who is guilty, and Might Get Away With it. Of course a plea makes sense there. Try looking at it from the perspective of someone falsely accused, though, whose option is either a public defender or being falsely convicted.

csa 8y ago
Serious question, what crime do you think you could get accused of with "slam dunk" level of evidence that you were actually innocent of? It takes some serious mental gymnastics (e.g., your doppelganger commits a crime right as you walk by) or you living in a massively corrupt area. As far as money goes, you can get a publicly appointed attorney that the state pays for if you cannot afford an attorney on your own. Some of these folks are really good, some aren't. That said, if you're totally innocent, no lawyer who has passed the bar should have any trouble getting the charges dropped. Again, DAs don't just sit around trying to frame people for crimes they didn't commit -- they have enough actual work to do.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > That said, if you're totally innocent, no lawyer who has passed the bar should have any trouble getting the charges dropped. That's...amusing. > Again, DAs don't just sit around trying to frame people for crimes they didn't commit Mostly not, it's more likely to be child who conceive of the frame and manufacture evidence (both planting physical evidence and falsifying testimonial evidence.) Plenty of groups of cops have been found doing this, sometimes to cover premeditated police crimes, and sometimes to cover for police errors. And sometimes the FBI simply invents entire fields of forensic science so that they can have “experts” testify in their (and state) trials to support the guilt of whomever law enforcement is directed at. The idea that it is trivial for a minimally qualified lawyer to ensure that the factually innocent walk free in America is laughably naive.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  " Again, DAs don't just sit around trying to frame people for crimes they didn't commit" Es a "for example" I suggest that you read about Mike Nifong's (DA on the Duke LaCrosse rape case) actions and his despicable lying. [1] This may seriously change your opinion on the subject. DA's regularily lie and cheat for political gain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
  - csa 8y ago
    I’m very familiar with this case. Note that there obviously was not a slam dunk level of evidence, the defendants were declared innocent, and the DA was disbarred. Sounds like the system works to me (although with undue stress). What percentage of cases do you think are like this? My guess is sub 0.01% — it’s just not that common according to the defense attorneys I know. When it does happen, bar complaints fly. My friend tells me that there definitely are wrongful convictions, but it is often not that the person was innocent of a crime, but that they were convicted of the wrong charge. As far as I am concerned, these types of cases seem to be very much the exception rather than the rule — no system is perfect, and I am fully aware of that. I have said elsewhere that a corrupt district or DA is a caveat to my stance. Ditto with high profile “must try” cases (I was a juror in one of those). That was a district with a corrupt DA — it happens. The cool thing to me is that the dude was disbarred — the system worked. I will also add that I think universities interpret rules far too generously (more like guilty until proven innocent), and I don’t agree with that at all, but that does not always become a legal matter. When it does, it is often a must-case for political reasons, and plea deals getnwokky then. I’ve said all of this elsewhere.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]