4 ms·
The idea of justice is not to provide some benefits to people who where accused of some crimes. If someone has committed a crime, then justice system shouldn't
by 13415 8y ago
The idea of justice is not to provide some benefits to people who where accused of some crimes. If someone has committed a crime, then justice system shouldn't help him. If on the other hand the person has not committed besaid crime, then the justice system ought to carefully prevent wrong accusations and ensure a fair trial.
The please bargain system does neither of that.
- tedunangst 8y agoHow do we decide who has committed a crime?
- 13415 8y agoI have argued that the plea bargain system is unjust in both cases, when the accused has committed the crime and when the accused has not committed the crime. There is no need for anyone to decide who has committed a crime for that argument to go through. To answer your question, not "we" would do that but that's what fair trials are intended for.
- tptacek 8y agoIt sounds an awful lot like you're angry Hutchins isn't facing a harsher sentence.
- 13415 8y agoNo, if that's how you read my post you should read it again. I personally believe he should have faced 3 years maximum and that sentences are way too high in the US, up to 10 times higher than elsewhere, but that wasn't the point. I was laying out reasons why the plea bargain system is principally unjust. There are many more problems with the US justice system, of course.
- tptacek 8y agoAs a technicality, he faces a 5-year maximum sentence (the sentencing judge could simply ignore the plea bargain and all the sentencing guidelines and Hutchins lack of criminal history and simply impute the maximum statutory sentence). In reality, the guideline ranges stipulated in the plea bargain put him most likely under 2 years, and possibly as few as 6 months. Even with the maximum upward departure stipulated in the agreement, Hutchins would not be looking at 3 years.