4 ms·

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/appendices/D04Sep11.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness... No, i

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/appendices/D04Sep11.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness... No, it actually isn't. You have to look at convictions, acquittals, and dismissals to form an accurate assessment of the outcome of criminal prosecutions. When you factor in dismissals, the conviction rate, whether by a plea of guilty or no contest, or as a result of a trial, drops to 90-91%.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason? Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.
- agwa 14y ago
  Right - dismissals of some counts often happen as part of a guilty plea. Still, wording is important: both I and the parent poster should have said 97% was the percentage of convictions which resulted from pleas, not the percentage of indicted defendants which plead guilty. I think taking percentage of convictions is the correct metric to use - given the ideals of innocent until proven guilty and the right to trial, you would hope that most convictions were the result of a trial rather than a vanishingly small (and getting smaller) 3%. It's also quite telling that even with statistics haggling, the anonymous poster still conceded a whopping 90%.
- anon3456 14y ago
  What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwise Grand Juries (and the prosecutors that bring cases before them) aren't serving their function, and their findings of probable cause are erroneous. I actually don't think a conviction rate of 9 out of 10 is too high; rather, too many things are illegal (and felonious in particular), and the penalties are too severe. But I don't think the actual trial and pretrial systems are irredeemably bad, as many of the posts here are suggesting.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? Don't be ridiculous. What I would prefer is that more of the innocent people who are currently charged not be convicted or coerced into a guilty plea by the prospect of outrageous penalties and soul-crushing legal fees. >People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwise Grand Juries (and the prosecutors that bring cases before them) aren't serving their function, and their findings of probable cause are erroneous. It is pretty obviously the case that they fail spectacularly at this function. "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." - New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler And until that changes (if it even can), the conviction rate should not be anywhere near as high as it is. >too many things are illegal (and felonious in particular), and the penalties are too severe. On this we agree.
    - anon3456 14y ago
      > What I would prefer is that more of the innocent people who are currently charged not be convicted or coerced into a guilty plea by the prospect of outrageous penalties and soul-crushing legal fees. Swartz was guilty. Even Lessig's post decrying Swartz' treatment intimates as much. Again, perhaps the things he did shouldn't have been crimes, or at least not felonies, and the penalties shouldn't have been so severe, but you need to distinguish between innocent people being wrongly prosecuted for things they did not do and bad law making criminals out of good people. > "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." - New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler Judges, prosecutors and legal academics in general exhibit hostility towards juries, grand and petit alike. There are rare exceptions, such as Antonin Scalia. But in general, the legal profession resents the continued involvement of the common man in the judicial process, especially in as crucial a role as pre- and post-trial arbiter of fact. Whatever perceived defects exist in the grand jury process, such as its secrecy or the absence of the accused, these can be remedied while still keeping intact the basic structure of 23 average citizens making, by majority, a determination of probable cause. In fact, rather than being part of the problem, if juries were so emboldened, they could mitigate many of the injustices of our system themselves through the use of jury nullification.
downandout 14y ago
Including dismissals, I suppose you are in the ballpark. However, are you saying that a 90-91% conviction rate, in a system that publicly claims to offer so many protections to those within its grasp, is a positive thing? Many of our federal courthouses have inscriptions of Blackstone's formulation ("better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"). That is hardly the case in practice in our courts today.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason? Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.

agwa 14y ago
Right - dismissals of some counts often happen as part of a guilty plea. Still, wording is important: both I and the parent poster should have said 97% was the percentage of convictions which resulted from pleas, not the percentage of indicted defendants which plead guilty. I think taking percentage of convictions is the correct metric to use - given the ideals of innocent until proven guilty and the right to trial, you would hope that most convictions were the result of a trial rather than a vanishingly small (and getting smaller) 3%. It's also quite telling that even with statistics haggling, the anonymous poster still conceded a whopping 90%.
anon3456 14y ago
What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwise Grand Juries (and the prosecutors that bring cases before them) aren't serving their function, and their findings of probable cause are erroneous. I actually don't think a conviction rate of 9 out of 10 is too high; rather, too many things are illegal (and felonious in particular), and the penalties are too severe. But I don't think the actual trial and pretrial systems are irredeemably bad, as many of the posts here are suggesting.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? Don't be ridiculous. What I would prefer is that more of the innocent people who are currently charged not be convicted or coerced into a guilty plea by the prospect of outrageous penalties and soul-crushing legal fees. >People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwise Grand Juries (and the prosecutors that bring cases before them) aren't serving their function, and their findings of probable cause are erroneous. It is pretty obviously the case that they fail spectacularly at this function. "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." - New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler And until that changes (if it even can), the conviction rate should not be anywhere near as high as it is. >too many things are illegal (and felonious in particular), and the penalties are too severe. On this we agree.
  - anon3456 14y ago
    > What I would prefer is that more of the innocent people who are currently charged not be convicted or coerced into a guilty plea by the prospect of outrageous penalties and soul-crushing legal fees. Swartz was guilty. Even Lessig's post decrying Swartz' treatment intimates as much. Again, perhaps the things he did shouldn't have been crimes, or at least not felonies, and the penalties shouldn't have been so severe, but you need to distinguish between innocent people being wrongly prosecuted for things they did not do and bad law making criminals out of good people. > "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." - New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler Judges, prosecutors and legal academics in general exhibit hostility towards juries, grand and petit alike. There are rare exceptions, such as Antonin Scalia. But in general, the legal profession resents the continued involvement of the common man in the judicial process, especially in as crucial a role as pre- and post-trial arbiter of fact. Whatever perceived defects exist in the grand jury process, such as its secrecy or the absence of the accused, these can be remedied while still keeping intact the basic structure of 23 average citizens making, by majority, a determination of probable cause. In fact, rather than being part of the problem, if juries were so emboldened, they could mitigate many of the injustices of our system themselves through the use of jury nullification.

downandout 14y ago

Including dismissals, I suppose you are in the ballpark. However, are you saying that a 90-91% conviction rate, in a system that publicly claims to offer so many protections to those within its grasp, is a positive thing? Many of our federal courthouses have inscriptions of Blackstone's formulation ("better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"). That is hardly the case in practice in our courts today.