4 ms·

> 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 t

by 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.
- watwut 3y ago
  > The same way that police will tell you they'll arrest you for standing on a sidewalk. That is police abuse tho. In a sane controlled police system, no they can not threaten you with arrest for standing on a sidewalk. > It's why we provide legal services to defendants Public defenders are notoriously overburdened and have massively limited resources. They are less likely to get you bail and you are much easier to be coerced when you wait in jail for months.
daedrdev 3y ago
Or it means they don’t have enough resources to run a trial for every case they believe they will win. , and so give out plea bargins to reduce the number of trials

by mrkeen 3y ago

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.

watwut 3y ago
> The same way that police will tell you they'll arrest you for standing on a sidewalk. That is police abuse tho. In a sane controlled police system, no they can not threaten you with arrest for standing on a sidewalk. > It's why we provide legal services to defendants Public defenders are notoriously overburdened and have massively limited resources. They are less likely to get you bail and you are much easier to be coerced when you wait in jail for months.

daedrdev 3y ago

Or it means they don’t have enough resources to run a trial for every case they believe they will win. , and so give out plea bargins to reduce the number of trials