4 ms·

What portion of those convictions are plea bargains? This article says 97%: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-co

What portion of those convictions are plea bargains? This article says 97%: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec... Why are people so eager to confess their guilt instead of challenging the government to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury? The answer is simple and stark: They’re being coerced.

tptacek 5y ago
This is a pretty silly argument. I'm not opining on whether or not prosecutions are coercive; I'm certain they are. But a lower conviction rate would be a bad thing: it would mean the DOJ was bringing more cases they weren't certain they would win, and even exoneration comes with immense costs to the accused.
- tnorthcutt 5y ago
  I wasn't replying to a claim that a high conviction rate is a good thing (or better than a lower one). I was replying to a claim that a high conviction rate somehow suggests we should dispense with the idea that, as a society, we should not presume guilt. grumple, who I replied to, seemed to me to be suggesting that because the federal government has a high conviction rate, we should assume the accused are guilty. I'm suggesting that because there is compelling evidence that many guilty verdicts are obtained through coercion, we should not make that assumption.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Nobody is suggesting we presume guilt. The suggestion is that we're not required to defer opinions about guilt until after a jury trial, which is sensible.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  The argument around plea bargains is pretty simple. You have someone over a barrel: "Take the deal and go to prison for two or five years, or take a risk on a trial where you'll be put away for life. And btw, our conviction rate is 99.96%." You'd be crazy not to take the deal, even if you're innocent. Thus, the conviction rate doesn't actually tell us much about how strong the federal cases actually are.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    That's not the structure of most plea bargains ("2 years vs. life") but more importantly, you don't have enough information in that hypothetical to determine how fair the system is, because you're not accounting for how liberally federal prosecutors bring cases. If they tend only to bring cases when they have overwhelming evidence --- which is the rap on federal prosecutors (not so much state) --- then you get the same outcome simply by dint of most people in plea negotiations being guilty. A good reason not to take a case to trial is your knowledge that you'll be destroyed at trial.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >A good reason not to take a case to trial is your knowledge that you'll be destroyed at trial. Another good reason not to take a case to trial is potentially spending years in pre-trial detention, destroying your life -- losing your house, your kids, your job and anything else that requires your presence outside of a detention facility. Which is why so many cases end up as plea bargains -- get sentenced to "time served" for a lesser offense and then try to pick up the pieces of your shattered life, or fight (assuming you have the money/resources to do so) and potentially never get the chance to pick up those pieces. So yes, the system is quite coercive. Let's say for the sake of argument that the DoJ (or state prosecutors) determine (by whatever means) that tptacek has committed criminal acts. You are arrested, arraigned and bail is either denied or set high enough that you can't afford to pay. How long could you sit in jail before you lose your job, your house, possibly your spouse and your kids and anything else important to you? It could be years before a trial. And given that most folks can't afford an unexpected $500 expense, sitting in jail waiting to be tried isn't all that unusual. Given those circumstances, how long could you sit in jail awaiting trial before your life is a complete shambles? Given the make up of folks here on HN, I'd expect that you may well be able to last longer than most. High bail and pre-trial detention are absolutely used as cudgels that attempt to force even the innocent to accept plea agreements. Especially when indictments tend to include a lot of overcharging -- another cudgel to force a plea agreement. Which is why I don't believe that plea agreements should be used at all. But that's a much larger discussion and beyond the scope of this comment.
    - 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago

This is a pretty silly argument. I'm not opining on whether or not prosecutions are coercive; I'm certain they are. But a lower conviction rate would be a bad thing: it would mean the DOJ was bringing more cases they weren't certain they would win, and even exoneration comes with immense costs to the accused.

tnorthcutt 5y ago
I wasn't replying to a claim that a high conviction rate is a good thing (or better than a lower one). I was replying to a claim that a high conviction rate somehow suggests we should dispense with the idea that, as a society, we should not presume guilt. grumple, who I replied to, seemed to me to be suggesting that because the federal government has a high conviction rate, we should assume the accused are guilty. I'm suggesting that because there is compelling evidence that many guilty verdicts are obtained through coercion, we should not make that assumption.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Nobody is suggesting we presume guilt. The suggestion is that we're not required to defer opinions about guilt until after a jury trial, which is sensible.
sdenton4 5y ago
The argument around plea bargains is pretty simple. You have someone over a barrel: "Take the deal and go to prison for two or five years, or take a risk on a trial where you'll be put away for life. And btw, our conviction rate is 99.96%." You'd be crazy not to take the deal, even if you're innocent. Thus, the conviction rate doesn't actually tell us much about how strong the federal cases actually are.
- tptacek 5y ago
  That's not the structure of most plea bargains ("2 years vs. life") but more importantly, you don't have enough information in that hypothetical to determine how fair the system is, because you're not accounting for how liberally federal prosecutors bring cases. If they tend only to bring cases when they have overwhelming evidence --- which is the rap on federal prosecutors (not so much state) --- then you get the same outcome simply by dint of most people in plea negotiations being guilty. A good reason not to take a case to trial is your knowledge that you'll be destroyed at trial.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >A good reason not to take a case to trial is your knowledge that you'll be destroyed at trial. Another good reason not to take a case to trial is potentially spending years in pre-trial detention, destroying your life -- losing your house, your kids, your job and anything else that requires your presence outside of a detention facility. Which is why so many cases end up as plea bargains -- get sentenced to "time served" for a lesser offense and then try to pick up the pieces of your shattered life, or fight (assuming you have the money/resources to do so) and potentially never get the chance to pick up those pieces. So yes, the system is quite coercive. Let's say for the sake of argument that the DoJ (or state prosecutors) determine (by whatever means) that tptacek has committed criminal acts. You are arrested, arraigned and bail is either denied or set high enough that you can't afford to pay. How long could you sit in jail before you lose your job, your house, possibly your spouse and your kids and anything else important to you? It could be years before a trial. And given that most folks can't afford an unexpected $500 expense, sitting in jail waiting to be tried isn't all that unusual. Given those circumstances, how long could you sit in jail awaiting trial before your life is a complete shambles? Given the make up of folks here on HN, I'd expect that you may well be able to last longer than most. High bail and pre-trial detention are absolutely used as cudgels that attempt to force even the innocent to accept plea agreements. Especially when indictments tend to include a lot of overcharging -- another cudgel to force a plea agreement. Which is why I don't believe that plea agreements should be used at all. But that's a much larger discussion and beyond the scope of this comment.
  - 5y ago