4 ms·

> Convictions are in the high 90%. Juries are very weak and at the mercy of powerful prosecutors. If that were true then defendants would waive their right to

• czl 2y ago
  That and juries are not informed they have a right to judge not just the defendant but also the fairness of the laws involved. Indeed anyone that mentions or admits this is removed from juries.
• dTal 2y ago
  >If that were true then defendants would waive their right to a jury trial. They don't. They do, overwhelmingly. Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States.
  • qarl 2y ago
    Well, no. That's a different situation. My point still stands. For cases that go to trial, if they jury is just a pawn for prosecution, the defendants would choose a bench trial. They do not, so this argument does not hold water.
    • pyuser583 2y ago
      I knew a guy who was charged with a crime he didn’t commit, and had strong proof of his innocence. He was advised to do a bench trial. The idea was the evidence was so strongly in his favor that only an idiot would find him guilty, and a judge was less likely to be an idiot than a jury. It worked out splendidly. The trial didn’t even finish. The judge halted the trial half way through and “advised” the prosecution to drop charges, which they did. This is of course not representative. But if I were ever in the same spot, I’d seriously consider a bench trial.
      • qingcharles 2y ago
        It's not representative. Bench trials can be equally dangerous. Judges are overwhelmingly ex-prosecutors (I think the stats are >80%). I know someone who recently took a bench trial. No evidence of a crime was presented. The closing argument was the defense was "There was zero, zip, zilch evidence of any crime committed, and no mention of the defendant by anyone." The judge found the defendant guilty and then retired the next day. It's on appeal. C'est la vie. (OTOH I saw a judge take a bench trial on a crime they'd committed, and their buddy was the trier of fact. The first witness had barely stepped onto the stand when the defendant was pronounced not guilty. LOL)
• akhosravian 2y ago
  Plea bargains account for over 90% of convictions in the US. Part of the cause is prosecutors can and do offer deals that rational actors would have a hard time refusing. As a trivial example: imagine you are charged with a misdemeanor you absolutely didn’t do. Assuming you have no previous criminal record the state offers you a civil penalty (ie an expensive speeding ticket). Are you going to go to trial knowing you could be sentenced to a year in prison? Keep in mind just paying an attorney to represent you through the trial will cost several times the civil penalty.
  • qarl 2y ago
    As I explained in the other comment - plea bargains are a different issue - and do not impact my argument in the least. The OP claims that juries can be bullied by a prosecutor into delivering a guilty plea. But if this were so, defendants would choose a bench trial as it would a safer bet. They do not, because juries are not bullied by prosecutors.