3 ms·
Because the accused thinks he doesn’t have a chance at trial with an overworked public defender, he takes the plea and is - for all intents and purposes - denie
by ttul 8y ago
Because the accused thinks he doesn’t have a chance at trial with an overworked public defender, he takes the plea and is - for all intents and purposes - denied due process. If plea bargains were harder to execute, then DAs would be forced to be more choosey about the cases they decide to prosecute, knowing that flimsy cases would clog the system and cause many cases to be stayed due to the unreasonable passage of time...
- bdcravens 8y agoI've had the misfortune of knowing people who rejected the plea bargain. It's always a gamble of being found not guilty, because in the punishment phase, it's always 3x or more of the previous offer.
- tyingq 8y agoMaybe that is something interesting to look at? Cap the punishment to some lower multiple of any plea bargain offered?
- gpm 8y agoA reasonable multiplier here would be 1. Anything more is coercion to give up your rights. The issue with this is of course that if people exercise their rights, the courts would be swamped.
- sokoloff 8y agoEven if I knew I was guilty and that the state had all the evidence to prove it, why would I ever take a plea deal that was no better than the worst-case trial outcome? DA could make a mistake; I might come up with a particularly recalcitrant jury; I might end up with an appealable matter.
- gpm 8y agoYou wouldn't. That's fine. That's your right. The state has no right to punish you for exercising it. Except, practically today they do punish, and practically the system would grind to a halt otherwise.
- ttul 8y agoThe accused should not suffer because the courts are clogged. In Canada, a gigantic decision came from our Supreme Court recently that puts an upper limit on the amount of time that can pass before a mistrial has occurred. It has forced the provinces to re-examine their funding of the justice system and in particular public defenders. Either the courts need more money, or the laws need to change to reduce the number of accused...
- sokoloff 8y agoI think there's a valid place for "Hey, we can make this a bit easier and more efficient for everyone and here's what we, the state, are prepared to give up in order to facilitate that."
- gpm 8y agoImagine applying that to the right to free speech instead of the right to due process for a moment. "Hey, we can make this a little easier for everyone, you can stop advocating for <favorite political cause, say, doing away with plea deals> and we will reduce your prison sentence". A fundamental part of rights is that the government can't coerce you into giving them up. If you really want to go down this path, what would almost pass muster in my point of view is having non indigent defendants who are found guilty have to pay for the extra court resources they used. Even then I think it's a pretty clear violation of their rights, but at least it has some rational basis behind it.