3 ms·

> As far as I'm aware, Canada and England work very similarly with pleas reducing sentencing, the vast majority of cases not going to trial, and a cash bail sys

by rlpb 8y ago

> As far as I'm aware, Canada and England work very similarly with pleas reducing sentencing, the vast majority of cases not going to trial, and a cash bail system. Quite the opposite (in terms of pleas and cash bail). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain. For example in England plea bargains are based on timing of plea only and are limited to one third off the sentence only. Bail is given by default and a cash bond is not required. > Which country would you say does it right? I'm not sure I'm qualified to say that some country does it right, but England for example is quite the opposite of the US in terms of "presumption of innocence" really having a meaning. The system hasn't ground to a halt, yet innocent people don't rot in jail awaiting trial just because they're poor, and don't have to plead guilty for fear of getting a 10x sentence.

slg 8y ago
We were discussing the removal of these systems. In a spectrum with no plea system/cash bail on one side and the American system on the other, those countries are much closer to us then no plea/cash bail side. I stand by my statement that "Canada and England work very similarly with pleas reducing sentencing, the vast majority of cases not going to trial, and a cash bail system." The rest of your post just goes back to my previous comment about max sentences. If we reduce the max sentence for that hypothetical crime from 20 years to 3 years, then our system would be the same in that people who plead guilty would receive two thirds the sentence that those found guilty at trial. Also, one of the reasons that the UK is able to handle this increased case workload (although a majority of cases are still plead down) is they spend a relatively high amount per capita when compared with other countries. Once again, I am not against a holistic change that reforms the whole justice system. But doing away with the plea system doesn't have the benefits that you suggest and has various downsides that you are skipping over.

by rlpb 8y ago

slg 8y ago

We were discussing the removal of these systems. In a spectrum with no plea system/cash bail on one side and the American system on the other, those countries are much closer to us then no plea/cash bail side. I stand by my statement that "Canada and England work very similarly with pleas reducing sentencing, the vast majority of cases not going to trial, and a cash bail system." The rest of your post just goes back to my previous comment about max sentences. If we reduce the max sentence for that hypothetical crime from 20 years to 3 years, then our system would be the same in that people who plead guilty would receive two thirds the sentence that those found guilty at trial. Also, one of the reasons that the UK is able to handle this increased case workload (although a majority of cases are still plead down) is they spend a relatively high amount per capita when compared with other countries. Once again, I am not against a holistic change that reforms the whole justice system. But doing away with the plea system doesn't have the benefits that you suggest and has various downsides that you are skipping over.