5 ms·

Yes, well, if it's one thing that we've learned it's that the American legal system is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes. It takes the action of t

Yes, well, if it's one thing that we've learned it's that the American legal system is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes. It takes the action of the legislative, executive, or higher judicial bodies to actually change things.

visarga 14y ago
Plea bargaining has been here for many years. As bad as it can get, it is the default operating mode. Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it. So what can we do ? Is it a good idea to ban plea bargaining? I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining, so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system. Justice being the best your money can buy - it's a sad reality. They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that? Maybe we need more lawyerless law suits, like those from Small Claims Court, to even the playing field. If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. Mandatory minimums are one of those thought free zones of US, together with the war on drugs, war on terror and "won't anyone think of the children?". I believe we need more common sense and ethic into our justice and less automatic rubber stamping of convictions.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system. It is the reverse. If you have too many cases to deal with because of absurd legislation that criminalizes a large portion of your population then you are already DDOS'ing your legal system. The 'lets try to route all requests straight to jail' option is not a solution for this problem. The DDOS is cause, not effect, and it is the laws that cause the DDOS, not the fact that people have (in theory apparently) a right to a fair trial.
- EvilLook 14y ago
  >I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining Then you don't understand what a plea bargain is. Plea bargains are used only in criminal cases. You may have heard that 90% of lawsuits are settled before they go to court but that has nothing to do with what a plea bargain is. >Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it. No, trumping up accusations is grandstanding. It is neither necessary nor wise if you have a plea bargain system in place. Yes, you can tell the defendant what the possible maximum sentence is, but that doesn't mean you have to grandstand and press conference the result for the rest of the world's consumption. >They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that? Talk to Kevin Mitnick and Bernie S about this... >If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. This I agree with. The entire purpose of having a judge involved in sentencing was to make sure that each case was judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums castrate the judicial system and give too much control to a legislature that is largely bought and paid for by the military/prison/school/election/industrial complex.
  - khuey 14y ago
    97% of federal criminal cases prosecuted to a conclusion result in plea bargains. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- msandford 14y ago
  Derekp7 came up with a great solution that I will generalize slightly: All cases which go to trial should have to be won entirely by the prosecution (in which case the proper punishment is meted out) or won completely by the defense (in which case no punishment happens). This would strongly encourage prosecutors to only pursue charges which they could actually make stick instead of whatever they can think up that might sorta be tangentially related or have other words in common with the alleged crimes of those they prosecute. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094293 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094293

visarga 14y ago

Plea bargaining has been here for many years. As bad as it can get, it is the default operating mode. Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it. So what can we do ? Is it a good idea to ban plea bargaining? I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining, so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system. Justice being the best your money can buy - it's a sad reality. They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that? Maybe we need more lawyerless law suits, like those from Small Claims Court, to even the playing field. If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. Mandatory minimums are one of those thought free zones of US, together with the war on drugs, war on terror and "won't anyone think of the children?". I believe we need more common sense and ethic into our justice and less automatic rubber stamping of convictions.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 14y ago
> so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system. It is the reverse. If you have too many cases to deal with because of absurd legislation that criminalizes a large portion of your population then you are already DDOS'ing your legal system. The 'lets try to route all requests straight to jail' option is not a solution for this problem. The DDOS is cause, not effect, and it is the laws that cause the DDOS, not the fact that people have (in theory apparently) a right to a fair trial.
EvilLook 14y ago
>I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining Then you don't understand what a plea bargain is. Plea bargains are used only in criminal cases. You may have heard that 90% of lawsuits are settled before they go to court but that has nothing to do with what a plea bargain is. >Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it. No, trumping up accusations is grandstanding. It is neither necessary nor wise if you have a plea bargain system in place. Yes, you can tell the defendant what the possible maximum sentence is, but that doesn't mean you have to grandstand and press conference the result for the rest of the world's consumption. >They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that? Talk to Kevin Mitnick and Bernie S about this... >If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. This I agree with. The entire purpose of having a judge involved in sentencing was to make sure that each case was judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums castrate the judicial system and give too much control to a legislature that is largely bought and paid for by the military/prison/school/election/industrial complex.
- khuey 14y ago
  97% of federal criminal cases prosecuted to a conclusion result in plea bargains. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
msandford 14y ago
Derekp7 came up with a great solution that I will generalize slightly: All cases which go to trial should have to be won entirely by the prosecution (in which case the proper punishment is meted out) or won completely by the defense (in which case no punishment happens). This would strongly encourage prosecutors to only pursue charges which they could actually make stick instead of whatever they can think up that might sorta be tangentially related or have other words in common with the alleged crimes of those they prosecute. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094293 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094293