4 ms·

This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing. Which I know makes the name kind of vestigial but it's at least more honest abo

by Spivak 2y ago

This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing. Which I know makes the name kind of vestigial but it's at least more honest about the transaction. Both sides are negotiating based on the perceived time and monetary effort, and chance of conviction. Someone who is innocent may (unfortunately) find it their best course of action to take a plea deal and they shouldn't have to falsely admit their guilt to accept it. It's not perfect but it removes a lot of the coercive elements from the transaction.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
They are considered somewhat differently which is why some statutes/laws have a clause 'or plead guilty to'. I don't see how it removes in any way that the threat of imposition of the trial tax is a threat. If you can receive a 5 or 50 year sentence for the exact same crime, with the exact same circumstances other than taking a plea, the extra 45 years can not be considered anything but an explicit threat to take the plea. Or that pleas were considered unconstitutional at the founding of the US and only made legal in the 1960s. The government only allows pleas for businesses that include a non admission of guilt. Admission of guilt is required as part of the Federal plea process, otherwise defendants could retain too many appeal rights (when you admit guilt from that point on you must prove a much higher 'actual innocence' legal standard on appeal and none of the easier standards like tainted evidence, corrupt officials, improper procedures can be applied to your case).
- noduerme 2y ago
  Sorry, come again? What is a "trial tax"? You mean if you opt to go to trial, plead not guilty, and you lose then they're threatening that the penalty could be more severe? Is that the "tax"? Maybe it's just me, but if I were falsely accused, I'd take a jury trial in a heartbeat over making a false confession. Just on principle alone. I understand why a guilty defendant might take a plea bargain, but it blows my mind that this works on some people who are innocent.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    Prosecutors will argue exactly your point, that no innocent person would take a plea deal or confess to a crime they didn't do. But lots of research is demonstrating the opposite. Keep in mind that once police and prosecutors believe you probably are the one who committed the crime, they will usually stop investigating any alternate theories or people, and only focus on building their case against you - and sometimes, even withhold exonerating evidence. So if you do choose a trial, everything that is presented will be pointing at you and you alone, you can try to raise an alternate theory but nobody in authority will back you up. It's a very difficult spot to be in.
    - noduerme 2y ago
      No doubt it's difficult, and in countries like Russia it's downright impossible to defend your innocence successfully under such circumstances. But I think if you ever find yourself in such a situation, you have no choice but to stand on the truth, on principle. It's better to go down fighting than to submit. And in game theory terms, there is at least a potential upside to fighting the charge, even if the potential downside is worse. There is no further upside to pleading guilty to something you didn't do. I'll tell you this... the judge could tell the jury to ignore it, or declare a mistrial, but if someone had offered me a plea bargain for something I was innocent of, I would tell the jury that I'd refused it. Whether that was stricken from the record or not, at that point you're a political prisoner and you've done all you honestly can.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - smolder 2y ago
    When police have a false story that your own lawyer and everyone around you seems to buy, you might then falsely admit guilt. Knowing a lawyer so well that they believe your words above anyone's is a rare privilege.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
- listenallyall 2y ago
  The point of the plea deal is that you aren't pleading to "the exact same crime." For example maybe you're charged with 2nd degree murder, with extenuating circumstances of using a firearm, and that's what you'll be on trial for, facing 50 years. Unless you plead to involuntary manslaughter, with a 7 year max but the prosecutor will recommend 4 because you cooperated. Just an example, I'm making up the numbers. The whole thing is very slimy and coercive, not defending the system, I'm simply explaining why your argument is flawed.
trogdor 2y ago
This can sometimes happen. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Yea, because they consider threatening death coercive. But funnily enough, a 50+ years in prison threat when the state knows you will die in prison due to age/health, not considered coercive and doesn't qualify. It's the threat of physically being put to death that puts it over the line for this sort of plea for the courts to recognize the threat being made as 'coercive'. So The Justice System absolutely understands that pleas come with implicit threats. Or you can explain that as 'this can sometimes happen'.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing. No. Not even close. Instead, plea deals need to be made illegal. Prosecutors who use plea deals in more than 2% of their cases in a given calendar year should face loss of law license for life, and 10 years in prison. It should be aggressively enforced and a strict liability crime (no "I lost track" excuses). DAs would no longer be able to prosecute as many cases if most had to be taken to trial, and they would be much less permissive of cops who were filing borderline horseshit, who were refusing to use their discretion. Legislators would be less able to keep bad laws on the books, were it not for pervasive plea bargaining. In my own county, I heard with my own ears the DA bragging about how they do about 4000 cases per year, but take fewer than 30 to trial. Changing the ritual words that need to be spoken isn't a solution to anything.
- scotty79 2y ago
  > DAs would no longer be able to prosecute as many cases if most had to be taken to trial That's the whole reason that the entire plea system is in place. Trials are so expensive and justice system is so inefficiently organized that everything would go to a standstill without the pleas. You'd have to first modernize justice system to work in more European way before you can abolish pleas.
  - dTal 2y ago
    So, rephrasing: fair trials in the USA are actually a comforting myth, and you won't get one. Occasionally they will do one to keep the myth alive, but the reality is that due process is dead, and if the DA accuses you of something you have no recourse. Because of some legacy paperwork, they're technically not allowed to just chuck you in the slammer unless you admit to the crime, so they threaten you until any reasonable person would confess out of self preservation. Real bastion of freedom, the United States.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      Exactly.
    - 2y ago

by Spivak 2y ago

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

They are considered somewhat differently which is why some statutes/laws have a clause 'or plead guilty to'. I don't see how it removes in any way that the threat of imposition of the trial tax is a threat. If you can receive a 5 or 50 year sentence for the exact same crime, with the exact same circumstances other than taking a plea, the extra 45 years can not be considered anything but an explicit threat to take the plea. Or that pleas were considered unconstitutional at the founding of the US and only made legal in the 1960s. The government only allows pleas for businesses that include a non admission of guilt. Admission of guilt is required as part of the Federal plea process, otherwise defendants could retain too many appeal rights (when you admit guilt from that point on you must prove a much higher 'actual innocence' legal standard on appeal and none of the easier standards like tainted evidence, corrupt officials, improper procedures can be applied to your case).

noduerme 2y ago
Sorry, come again? What is a "trial tax"? You mean if you opt to go to trial, plead not guilty, and you lose then they're threatening that the penalty could be more severe? Is that the "tax"? Maybe it's just me, but if I were falsely accused, I'd take a jury trial in a heartbeat over making a false confession. Just on principle alone. I understand why a guilty defendant might take a plea bargain, but it blows my mind that this works on some people who are innocent.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  Prosecutors will argue exactly your point, that no innocent person would take a plea deal or confess to a crime they didn't do. But lots of research is demonstrating the opposite. Keep in mind that once police and prosecutors believe you probably are the one who committed the crime, they will usually stop investigating any alternate theories or people, and only focus on building their case against you - and sometimes, even withhold exonerating evidence. So if you do choose a trial, everything that is presented will be pointing at you and you alone, you can try to raise an alternate theory but nobody in authority will back you up. It's a very difficult spot to be in.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    No doubt it's difficult, and in countries like Russia it's downright impossible to defend your innocence successfully under such circumstances. But I think if you ever find yourself in such a situation, you have no choice but to stand on the truth, on principle. It's better to go down fighting than to submit. And in game theory terms, there is at least a potential upside to fighting the charge, even if the potential downside is worse. There is no further upside to pleading guilty to something you didn't do. I'll tell you this... the judge could tell the jury to ignore it, or declare a mistrial, but if someone had offered me a plea bargain for something I was innocent of, I would tell the jury that I'd refused it. Whether that was stricken from the record or not, at that point you're a political prisoner and you've done all you honestly can.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- smolder 2y ago
  When police have a false story that your own lawyer and everyone around you seems to buy, you might then falsely admit guilt. Knowing a lawyer so well that they believe your words above anyone's is a rare privilege.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
listenallyall 2y ago
The point of the plea deal is that you aren't pleading to "the exact same crime." For example maybe you're charged with 2nd degree murder, with extenuating circumstances of using a firearm, and that's what you'll be on trial for, facing 50 years. Unless you plead to involuntary manslaughter, with a 7 year max but the prosecutor will recommend 4 because you cooperated. Just an example, I'm making up the numbers. The whole thing is very slimy and coercive, not defending the system, I'm simply explaining why your argument is flawed.

trogdor 2y ago

This can sometimes happen. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Yea, because they consider threatening death coercive. But funnily enough, a 50+ years in prison threat when the state knows you will die in prison due to age/health, not considered coercive and doesn't qualify. It's the threat of physically being put to death that puts it over the line for this sort of plea for the courts to recognize the threat being made as 'coercive'. So The Justice System absolutely understands that pleas come with implicit threats. Or you can explain that as 'this can sometimes happen'.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing. No. Not even close. Instead, plea deals need to be made illegal. Prosecutors who use plea deals in more than 2% of their cases in a given calendar year should face loss of law license for life, and 10 years in prison. It should be aggressively enforced and a strict liability crime (no "I lost track" excuses). DAs would no longer be able to prosecute as many cases if most had to be taken to trial, and they would be much less permissive of cops who were filing borderline horseshit, who were refusing to use their discretion. Legislators would be less able to keep bad laws on the books, were it not for pervasive plea bargaining. In my own county, I heard with my own ears the DA bragging about how they do about 4000 cases per year, but take fewer than 30 to trial. Changing the ritual words that need to be spoken isn't a solution to anything.

scotty79 2y ago
> DAs would no longer be able to prosecute as many cases if most had to be taken to trial That's the whole reason that the entire plea system is in place. Trials are so expensive and justice system is so inefficiently organized that everything would go to a standstill without the pleas. You'd have to first modernize justice system to work in more European way before you can abolish pleas.
- dTal 2y ago
  So, rephrasing: fair trials in the USA are actually a comforting myth, and you won't get one. Occasionally they will do one to keep the myth alive, but the reality is that due process is dead, and if the DA accuses you of something you have no recourse. Because of some legacy paperwork, they're technically not allowed to just chuck you in the slammer unless you admit to the crime, so they threaten you until any reasonable person would confess out of self preservation. Real bastion of freedom, the United States.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    Exactly.
  - 2y ago