4 ms·
And this is as it should be.
by SoftTalker 3mo ago
And this is as it should be.
- 8note 3mo agono 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__ 3mo agoThat 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 3mo agoFund public defenders more so they are less overworked.
- hn_throwaway_99 3mo agoYou 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 3mo agoThe comment you are replying to already answers that question.
- hn_throwaway_99 3mo agoMy 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 3mo agoSo 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 3mo 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.