3 ms·
The original idea of course is that it frees up valuable court time and court resources. A defendant with little chance of success in court is incentivised to
by gorgoiler 2y ago
The original idea of course is that it frees up valuable court time and court resources. A defendant with little chance of success in court is incentivised to avoid a vexatious trial and go straight to sentencing.
How rational are the economics? How much did the trial cost the taxpayer compared to how much is it going to cost to provide food, accommodation, recreation facilities, and round-the-clock security to someone for 25 years?
Bureau of Prisons suggests the incarceration will cost $1m ($40k * 25y): https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-03/bop_se_fy_2024_pb_narrative_omb_cleared_3.23.2023.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-03/bop_se_fy_2024_pb_narrati...
That feels like an unusually long sentence but it was also an unusually long trial — 23 calendar days by my count, or one day per year of sentence, so maybe the trial costs versus prison cost match up if lesser crimes have shorter trials and shorter sentences.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoAh yes, efficiency is the ultimate goal, right comrade? What is a little state threatened violence (there is no way to say that 10s of years of forcible incarceration is not a threat of violence, there is no way to say that an increased security classification due to sentence length, and therefor incarceration at a much more violent prison, is not a threat of violence) for the waiver of 2 little rights (plea's include a waiver of the right to a trial and the right to an appeal)? Imagine the efficiency if we could allow the state to use violence to get 'citizens' to volunteer to waive their right to remain silent? So much efficiency comrade. It's not like Constitutional rights are important part of this country, we should treat them like China treats the ones enshrined in the Chinese constitution, just look how efficient that makes China, right comrade?