4 ms·

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

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
  Don't forget that lawyers that present cases before a judge day after day are get a form of 'the trial tax' imposed on them if they take cases to jury. They are very much biased to accept pleas.
Hikikomori 2y ago
You might reconsider when you and your public defender is up against the federal government that rarely loses at trial.
- noduerme 2y ago
  This is the point of trial by jury. I've served on juries, though never been tried in front of one. If we were talking about something where I had actually broken a law, I'd expect to lose. But if it were truly a case of mistaken identity? I'd almost certainly defend myself and be confident no jury would convict me. It's possible that a lot of people don't have sufficient skills to pore through legal books and case histories the way we pore through examples of massive SQL queries, but I'm sure I'd be up to it. And thus I would never concede to a plea bargain for something I hadn't done. Moreover, the whole concept of doing so is so anathema that I wouldn't care if it was a choice between admitting false guilt or execution (as it was in the show trials of the Soviet Union)... I would tell em to execute me. There are things I'm not willing to live with, like making a false confession, so you had better fuckin kill me.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    The most tech bro hubris I've ever seen.
    - noduerme 2y ago
      It's not a "tech bro" attitude to say you would prefer to die than to plead guilty to false charges. It's not a new attitude, either. It is an ancient attitude in western philosophy, going back at least to Socrates. Without individual determination to stand by the truth in the face of an arbitrary authority, there can be no just law, only power. A lot of individuals have had to die for truth and justice. Many were quite capable of defending themselves but the option wasn't available. That doesn't mean they didn't comport themselves well.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    So you are cool with your mom dying alone without you there for support because you want to keep your reputation? Your dad? Your wife/kids being on their own without your support for 45 years? You realize people that represent themselves are fools? Court isn't about smarts, it's about knowing how to play the game, your relationship with the judge, all kinds of factors. Heck if you word things just slightly wrong, you are hit and your winning argument is ignored. And a judge won't help you get to the correct wording.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Yes. In the USA the Feds set extremely high sentence lengths (30-50 years is common). They then offer a plea for 5-10. If you don't take the plea and go to trial and lose, your sentence (for the exact same crime and events that they offered you 5-10) is raised to 30-50. It is called the trail tax, you can Google it. In the US a person exercising their constitutional rights is considered during sentencing to be worth more time in prison than the actual crime/acts committed. Because remember, the judge would accept 5-10 as a reasonable sentence for the crime/acts committed IF it was a plea, but sentences to 30-50 if it is a trial. The criminal acts committed are still the same, only in one case the person has the trial tax imposed. Going to trial is considered WORSE than the crime by American judges.

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
Don't forget that lawyers that present cases before a judge day after day are get a form of 'the trial tax' imposed on them if they take cases to jury. They are very much biased to accept pleas.

Hikikomori 2y ago

You might reconsider when you and your public defender is up against the federal government that rarely loses at trial.

noduerme 2y ago
This is the point of trial by jury. I've served on juries, though never been tried in front of one. If we were talking about something where I had actually broken a law, I'd expect to lose. But if it were truly a case of mistaken identity? I'd almost certainly defend myself and be confident no jury would convict me. It's possible that a lot of people don't have sufficient skills to pore through legal books and case histories the way we pore through examples of massive SQL queries, but I'm sure I'd be up to it. And thus I would never concede to a plea bargain for something I hadn't done. Moreover, the whole concept of doing so is so anathema that I wouldn't care if it was a choice between admitting false guilt or execution (as it was in the show trials of the Soviet Union)... I would tell em to execute me. There are things I'm not willing to live with, like making a false confession, so you had better fuckin kill me.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  The most tech bro hubris I've ever seen.
  - noduerme 2y ago
    It's not a "tech bro" attitude to say you would prefer to die than to plead guilty to false charges. It's not a new attitude, either. It is an ancient attitude in western philosophy, going back at least to Socrates. Without individual determination to stand by the truth in the face of an arbitrary authority, there can be no just law, only power. A lot of individuals have had to die for truth and justice. Many were quite capable of defending themselves but the option wasn't available. That doesn't mean they didn't comport themselves well.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  So you are cool with your mom dying alone without you there for support because you want to keep your reputation? Your dad? Your wife/kids being on their own without your support for 45 years? You realize people that represent themselves are fools? Court isn't about smarts, it's about knowing how to play the game, your relationship with the judge, all kinds of factors. Heck if you word things just slightly wrong, you are hit and your winning argument is ignored. And a judge won't help you get to the correct wording.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Yes. In the USA the Feds set extremely high sentence lengths (30-50 years is common). They then offer a plea for 5-10. If you don't take the plea and go to trial and lose, your sentence (for the exact same crime and events that they offered you 5-10) is raised to 30-50. It is called the trail tax, you can Google it. In the US a person exercising their constitutional rights is considered during sentencing to be worth more time in prison than the actual crime/acts committed. Because remember, the judge would accept 5-10 as a reasonable sentence for the crime/acts committed IF it was a plea, but sentences to 30-50 if it is a trial. The criminal acts committed are still the same, only in one case the person has the trial tax imposed. Going to trial is considered WORSE than the crime by American judges.