3 ms·
> This is because we would rather have many guilty people go free than send an innocent person to prison No we wouldn't. Or we wouldn't utilize the plea deal
by FireBeyond 3y ago
> This is because we would rather have many guilty people go free than send an innocent person to prison
No we wouldn't.
Or we wouldn't utilize the plea deal in 93% of criminal cases. And we use it with little-to-no oversight. Unless what a prosecutor offers is so -utterly egregiously inappropriate- that it causes a judge to double take, they can pretty much do as they like.
Which is why we use it more than 60x more per capita than any other country on earth, in those countries that even allow it (it's not even officially sanctioned in the UK, though it has happened - fun fact, nearly 40% of the cases appealed as a "miscarriage of justice" in the UK involved plea deals).
> A government spokesperson said: “Ensuring defendants plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity means victims and witnesses do not have to relive their potentially traumatic experiences in court."
What? Not one word of innocence or presumption. Just "plead guilty early, we know you did it".
Even in countries that do use plea deals more often, there's strict oversight into what the deals entail and understanding of outcome.
Here, there's no incentive to rock the boat. Prosecutors push plea deals HEAVILY, innocence be damned, threatening the costs and risks of a trial (and the US over-charges people heavily) with a quick plea (that ever so conveniently allows our elected prosecutors to point to high conviction rates every re-election).
> it wouldn’t make sense to assume anyone who is not convicted on even one count is actually innocent
Oof. Not only is it "possible" you're not actually innocent, your attitude is "it doesn't even make sense to assume that". Screw it, why do we need a justice system? You were arrested, let's just take you straight to prison.
- gnicholas 3y ago> Oof. Not only is it "possible" you're not actually innocent, your attitude is "it doesn't even make sense to assume that". Screw it, why do we need a justice system? You were arrested, let's just take you straight to prison. Of course it's possible. But if someone is charged with 5 crimes and convicted of 4, why should we reimburse their legal fees? That is what GP proposed, and it would be nuts. If the prosecution struck out and went 0 for 5, that might make sense. But requiring them to run the table makes no sense.
- LocalH 3y agoPro-rate it. If the prosecution loses 1/5 counts, the defendant is reimbursed 1/5 of their total legal expenditure.
- petertodd 3y agoThese are criminal cases we are talking about. Cases that destroy lives when the prosecutors get it wrong. They damn well should be certain and they shouldn't be overcharging just to drain resources, as is clearly happening in this case. If prosecutors aren't certain they can win on all 5 counts, bring 4. Or 3. Or even 1. Most crimes should have pretty serious consequences. So convicting on one well-proven count should be enough.
- FireBeyond 3y agoI'll admit that your phrasing threw me. I thought you were saying that "let's be real, just because you were not convicted of a crime doesn't mean you didn't do it". But yes, while not meeting the legal bar, you can as a private individual draw your own inferences - sometimes - about someone being convicted of 80% of charges... however, note still my comment on prosecution heavily over-charging people to improve conviction rates, either directly, or by contributing to fear/stress (cost of defense, consequences, risk) to bludgeon someone into a plea deal regardless of factual guilt.