6 ms·

> Given that 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains, why would you imagine that sentencing is calibrated based on the 3% jury trials? Because that's not

by refurb 3y ago

> Given that 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains, why would you imagine that sentencing is calibrated based on the 3% jury trials? Because that's not how you measure options. If I'm collecting a debt of $1,000 from you, and I come to you and say "hey, if you pay it this week, I'll settle for only $700", would you say "This person is stealing $300 from me!"? Of course not. You always owed $1,000. This is an offer to pay less. Just like those charged with a crime always faced a specific punishment. If you offer a lesser punishment, it's not a threat of a harsher punishment because you always faced it, even if plea bargains never existed.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
This isn't related to your earlier comment. You originally claimed this: > It's not a threat of a "more severe sentence", it's a threat of a default sentence (the same sentence the accused would get if plea bargaining didn't exist at all). The plea bargain is an offer of a lesser sentence. The plea bargain is an offer of a "lesser" sentence, where "lesser" refers to a comparison to the trial sentence. It is not a comparison to the trial sentence from a counterfactual world in which plea bargains don't exist. As ajb points out, given that all US sentences derive from plea bargains, the sentence associated with a plea bargain already is the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for the crime. In the counterfactual word, you'd expect the counterfactual trial sentence to be about equal to the real-world plea bargain sentence.
- refurb 3y ago
  > the sentence associated with a plea bargain already is the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for the crime That's not true. Plea bargains can be incredibly minor punishments versus the crime. Plea bargains are the flip side of the prosecutions options. If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all - if they do, it may be a very severe sentence. If the prosecution thinks their odds of a win are low, they may offer a very lenient sentence, even for very serious crimes. But who goes to trial comparing their outcome to other trials? A individual is looking at a specific situation - their own trial. They have no idea about the circumstances of other trials - whether defendants were truly innocent, or how much evidence the prosecution had. You may be charged with murder, and another defendant got a plea bargain of only 1 year in prison for manslaughter. But the prosecution has a rock solid case so your plea bargain is life in prison. It's a singular decision of the defendant, usually with input from their lawyer. They'll need to determine their own likelihood of being found "not guilty" and decide if the risk is worth it versus the reduced sentence being offered.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all - if they do, it may be a very severe sentence. You have no idea how prosecutors act. Slam dunk cases are pled. Most cases are slam dunks. With plea bargains determining the sentence in 97% of cases, it isn't possible for those sentences to be felt to be lighter than appropriate. That would cause a political crisis.
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    > If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all > 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away, which is the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten someone into a confession than to have a proper trial.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away Note that while you're correct about what those statements would mean in combination, refurb's statement is false. There is very little point in examining what would follow from the invented claims of someone with no idea what he's talking about.
    - refurb 3y ago
      > Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away, which is the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten someone into a confession than to have a proper trial. Generally? No. Sometimes? Sure. And yes, you could view it as a threat. That's the nature of a adversarial justic system. The same way that police will tell you they'll arrest you for standing on a sidewalk. It's often an empty threat. It's why we provide legal services to defendants. So you can have a trained lawyer look at the evidence and tell you what you chances are of a not guilty verdict. Then the defendant can decide if a chance at not guilty is worth turning down a plea bargain.
rambambram 3y ago
And now you are going from criminal law to civil disputes. Hardly comparable.

by refurb 3y ago

thaumasiotes 3y ago

This isn't related to your earlier comment. You originally claimed this: > It's not a threat of a "more severe sentence", it's a threat of a default sentence (the same sentence the accused would get if plea bargaining didn't exist at all). The plea bargain is an offer of a lesser sentence. The plea bargain is an offer of a "lesser" sentence, where "lesser" refers to a comparison to the trial sentence. It is not a comparison to the trial sentence from a counterfactual world in which plea bargains don't exist. As ajb points out, given that all US sentences derive from plea bargains, the sentence associated with a plea bargain already is the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for the crime. In the counterfactual word, you'd expect the counterfactual trial sentence to be about equal to the real-world plea bargain sentence.

refurb 3y ago
> the sentence associated with a plea bargain already is the sentence that is felt to be appropriate for the crime That's not true. Plea bargains can be incredibly minor punishments versus the crime. Plea bargains are the flip side of the prosecutions options. If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all - if they do, it may be a very severe sentence. If the prosecution thinks their odds of a win are low, they may offer a very lenient sentence, even for very serious crimes. But who goes to trial comparing their outcome to other trials? A individual is looking at a specific situation - their own trial. They have no idea about the circumstances of other trials - whether defendants were truly innocent, or how much evidence the prosecution had. You may be charged with murder, and another defendant got a plea bargain of only 1 year in prison for manslaughter. But the prosecution has a rock solid case so your plea bargain is life in prison. It's a singular decision of the defendant, usually with input from their lawyer. They'll need to determine their own likelihood of being found "not guilty" and decide if the risk is worth it versus the reduced sentence being offered.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all - if they do, it may be a very severe sentence. You have no idea how prosecutors act. Slam dunk cases are pled. Most cases are slam dunks. With plea bargains determining the sentence in 97% of cases, it isn't possible for those sentences to be felt to be lighter than appropriate. That would cause a political crisis.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  > If the prosecutor thinks it's a slam dunk, they have little incentive to offer a plea bargain at all > 97% of convictions are based on plea bargains Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away, which is the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten someone into a confession than to have a proper trial.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away Note that while you're correct about what those statements would mean in combination, refurb's statement is false. There is very little point in examining what would follow from the invented claims of someone with no idea what he's talking about.
  - refurb 3y ago
    > Taken together, these mean prosecutors generally don't have good enough evidence to put people away, which is the thrust of the article: it's easier to threaten someone into a confession than to have a proper trial. Generally? No. Sometimes? Sure. And yes, you could view it as a threat. That's the nature of a adversarial justic system. The same way that police will tell you they'll arrest you for standing on a sidewalk. It's often an empty threat. It's why we provide legal services to defendants. So you can have a trained lawyer look at the evidence and tell you what you chances are of a not guilty verdict. Then the defendant can decide if a chance at not guilty is worth turning down a plea bargain.

rambambram 3y ago

And now you are going from criminal law to civil disputes. Hardly comparable.