3 ms·
That sounds like a problem with the sentences and not with the plea. --> Current world: Defendants have a choice between accepting a certain jail term of Y or
by slapshot 14y ago
That sounds like a problem with the sentences and not with the plea.
--> Current world: Defendants have a choice between accepting a certain jail term of Y or risking trial where they'll get in a range from 0-X (where X >> Y).
--> Your world: Defendants must risk trial where they'll get in a range from 0-X.
How is the second one better? If you want to reduce X, then just reduce X. The same argument goes if you say that Y must be some fraction of X --- if I were a defendant, I'd want at least an option of a very small Y (and if X is too high, just reduce X).
In addition to all the efficiency arguments (jurors, court costs, etc), guilty pleas save victims and witnesses from having to show up in court, be aggressively cross-examined by defense counsel, and suffer again. Why is it beneficial for somebody who knows he's guilty and knows he'll be convicted to have to inflict pain on his victims again?
[Edit: replied to wrong post]
- pyre 14y agoBy the time that you have gotten to the point where you are considering a plea bargain vs. a trial you have already lost. Even if you are innocent of the crime, the plea bargain can look really tempting. In cases like this, offering a low-ball plea bargain (e.g. '6 month sentence or go to trial and risk 35 years') can mean that the prosecutor's office would rather not go to trial (because they have a weak case). Seems to me that if the case is weak, then prosecutor shouldn't be pursuing it. [Though, maybe if it's a case of significant loss to the victim (e.g. murder), then pursuing the case even when it's weak may make sense.]