3 ms·

> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90% Prosecutors pick their cases. Defense doesn't. The cases that aren't 90%+ sure aren't charged.

SoftTalker 2mo ago
And this is as it should be.
- 8note 2mo ago
  no way! it should be about 50% conviction rate so that juries dont go in with non-evidence that the case is good because the feds thought it should go to court
  - __MatrixMan__ 2mo ago
    That would be a nice outcome but whose responsibility would you make it to encourage it? Judges and juries should not grade on a curve. Prosecutors shouldn't waste taxpayer money chasing convictions that are out of reach. There's nobody with access to that calibration dimetion.
    - Cider9986 2mo ago
      Fund public defenders more so they are less overworked.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2mo ago
    You do realize that what you're advocating for is for prosecutors to bring more cases to trial that previously they would have dropped. And you think that benefits defendants how???
    - account42 2mo ago
      The comment you are replying to already answers that question.
      - hn_throwaway_99 2mo ago
        My question was rhetorical. If OP really thinks going to trial is better for defendants because it will bring down prosecutors' conviction rates, I've got a bridge to sell them.
  - victorbjorklund 2mo ago
    So prosecutors should bring you to court even if they think there isn’t evidence that you are guilty just to make the conviction rate go down? Today they would let you walk but you would want them to take you to court for a crime the prosecutor don’t even think there is enough evidence?
  - NateEag 2mo ago
    "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." That is, yes, a ~50% conviction rate would be decent evidence that the Justice system is neither over-aggressive or under-aggressive in pursuing protection. If it were an explicit goal, it could not serve that purpose any longer.
fsuts 2mo ago
Yes. Prosecutors will often lower charges to ones where it can be tried without a jury too

SoftTalker 2mo ago

And this is as it should be.

8note 2mo ago
no way! it should be about 50% conviction rate so that juries dont go in with non-evidence that the case is good because the feds thought it should go to court
- __MatrixMan__ 2mo ago
  That would be a nice outcome but whose responsibility would you make it to encourage it? Judges and juries should not grade on a curve. Prosecutors shouldn't waste taxpayer money chasing convictions that are out of reach. There's nobody with access to that calibration dimetion.
  - Cider9986 2mo ago
    Fund public defenders more so they are less overworked.
- hn_throwaway_99 2mo ago
  You do realize that what you're advocating for is for prosecutors to bring more cases to trial that previously they would have dropped. And you think that benefits defendants how???
  - account42 2mo ago
    The comment you are replying to already answers that question.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2mo ago
      My question was rhetorical. If OP really thinks going to trial is better for defendants because it will bring down prosecutors' conviction rates, I've got a bridge to sell them.
- victorbjorklund 2mo ago
  So prosecutors should bring you to court even if they think there isn’t evidence that you are guilty just to make the conviction rate go down? Today they would let you walk but you would want them to take you to court for a crime the prosecutor don’t even think there is enough evidence?
- NateEag 2mo ago
  "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." That is, yes, a ~50% conviction rate would be decent evidence that the Justice system is neither over-aggressive or under-aggressive in pursuing protection. If it were an explicit goal, it could not serve that purpose any longer.

fsuts 2mo ago

Yes. Prosecutors will often lower charges to ones where it can be tried without a jury too