3 ms·

So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jai

by mrtron 14y ago

So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I guess you are write, we should give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt and be angry with the system that creates such a situation instead.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
> So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I don't know the right answer to this question. On the one hand, it does seem wrong to send someone to jail when you were willing to give them probation if they bargained with you. On the other hand, if the bargain deal and the worst case outcome of a trial are identical, then why would anyone ever bargain? And therefore the justice system becomes even more expensive to maintain, etc. So I'm of two minds. It is also entirely possible that the prosecution had no intention of asking for the maximum, but when you consider a trial as a negotiation-game, revealing that is also not something that you can do.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  I think the flaw is in thinking of the justice system as some kind of factory where "expensive" needs to be taken into account because we're working on volume. We need to stop charging so many people with crimes. Widespread criminality can only have two causes: The first is that we've criminalized too much, and the solution is obvious, repeal the unnecessary laws. The second is that society is suffering from a systemic failure of societal institutions to make a normal life superior to a life of crime, but the solution in that case should never be to increase the rate of incarceration, the solution should be to repair the social fabric -- which is where the money we currently spend on mass incarceration should be going instead. Once you stop having so many accused, you stop needing to worry about cost, and you can just prohibit plea bargains and afford to give everyone who is accused their day in court. In fact, making prosecutions more expensive is actually a feature, because it impedes the ability to create just the sort of mass imprisonment we have today.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    > where "expensive" needs to be taken into account I'm afraid I don't see this as a flaw. Scarce prosecutorial resources will always necessitate some kind of discretion in how to spend time. > criminalize too much You are widening the scope of the debate far more than I have taste for. You will have to find someone else to argue this point with.

by mrtron 14y ago

jamesaguilar 14y ago

> So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I don't know the right answer to this question. On the one hand, it does seem wrong to send someone to jail when you were willing to give them probation if they bargained with you. On the other hand, if the bargain deal and the worst case outcome of a trial are identical, then why would anyone ever bargain? And therefore the justice system becomes even more expensive to maintain, etc. So I'm of two minds. It is also entirely possible that the prosecution had no intention of asking for the maximum, but when you consider a trial as a negotiation-game, revealing that is also not something that you can do.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
I think the flaw is in thinking of the justice system as some kind of factory where "expensive" needs to be taken into account because we're working on volume. We need to stop charging so many people with crimes. Widespread criminality can only have two causes: The first is that we've criminalized too much, and the solution is obvious, repeal the unnecessary laws. The second is that society is suffering from a systemic failure of societal institutions to make a normal life superior to a life of crime, but the solution in that case should never be to increase the rate of incarceration, the solution should be to repair the social fabric -- which is where the money we currently spend on mass incarceration should be going instead. Once you stop having so many accused, you stop needing to worry about cost, and you can just prohibit plea bargains and afford to give everyone who is accused their day in court. In fact, making prosecutions more expensive is actually a feature, because it impedes the ability to create just the sort of mass imprisonment we have today.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  > where "expensive" needs to be taken into account I'm afraid I don't see this as a flaw. Scarce prosecutorial resources will always necessitate some kind of discretion in how to spend time. > criminalize too much You are widening the scope of the debate far more than I have taste for. You will have to find someone else to argue this point with.