3 ms·

The sentences potentially add together as much as a bullet may potentially self-fire. This is the same thing we saw with Aaron Swartz's case, the media and pros

by mpyne 13y ago

The sentences potentially add together as much as a bullet may potentially self-fire. This is the same thing we saw with Aaron Swartz's case, the media and prosecution want a number to describe the seriousness of the charges and so they add together the individual maximums of all of the individual charges, despite that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines would not actually call for consecutive sentences here (unless perhaps I'm missing some aggravating circumstances).

mikeash 13y ago
And this, too, is part of the problem. American prosecutors want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to threaten people with "95 years in prison!" But at the same time they want to show that they don't punish people with undue harshness. Is a foreign country supposed to ignore the maximum penalty an extradition candidate faces, and go with the particulars of how the US justice system usually works, especially when prosecutors will happily threaten people with the theoretical maximum whenever it suits them?
- mpyne 13y ago
  > American prosecutors want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to threaten people with "95 years in prison!" Unless you're of the opinion that public defenders and defense lawyers are simpletons who can barely figure out how to breathe, it doesn't matter what the prosecution tries to say to the accused. You can say it's all for show as part of a "trial by media", but defense attorneys are just as eager to do that, and such a thing has no bearing on the legal process anyways. Foreign countries should worried about the maximum conceivable penalty (which is even higher than plausible, but still much lower than the theoretically possible).
  - mikeash 13y ago
    The main purpose of the threats is to convince defendants to plea bargain, and it serves this purpose extremely well. Roughly 90% of American defendants accept a plea bargain, and many of them are innocent. These threats matter a lot. I mean, unless you're of the opinion that prosecutors are simpletons who can barely figure out how to breathe, they must serve some purpose given that they keep being made! Prosecutors want to use massive potential sentences to browbeat defendants into waiving their right to a trial. But, surprise! Some people take you at your word, and make other decisions based on threats like that. Again: the fact that the massive potential sentence isn't realistic is a bug, not a feature, in the US system.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Again though, the defendant's own lawyer is able to instruct his or her client on the actual potential sentence that the defendant is likely to face. It is not a number that can be calculated a priori as it depends highly on the charges for which a conviction is actually obtained, what types of evidence survive (or don't survive) the trial process, and way more factors than can be encompassed in a straight scalar value. That imprecision in sentencing certainly annoys the technical minded, but it is a feature compared to what happened before, where you sentence depended much more on the judge you were assigned and how the judge felt that day, than on what you were actually convicted of. Certainly most defendants do plea bargain, but you have provided no explanation why the reason plea bargains occur is related to the maximum sentence quoted for a press release. It is, I would say, just as likely that the reason people take the plea is that even the realistic sentence under the Federal sentencing guidelines, as explained by the defense counsel, is still harsh enough that the plea bargain represents a better deal than playing the acquittal lottery. Obviously the prosecutor will point out that the maximum theoretical sentence is something completely different, that's their job in the adversarial legal system. If it helps in securing a conviction it's mission accomplished. Likewise it is the job of the defense to explain that the likely sentence is something way different, that a given plea bargain is a joke, that evidence can be thrown out in court, and that entire cases can be thrown out on technicalities. I'm not sure why you would feel better if defendants went through a kangaroo court where justice is dispensed within days and the convicted are forgotten just as quickly, but I certainly don't see how that would lead to any decrease in wrongful convictions. Someday we'll give up on this war on drugs, and that will help with the backlog, but even then plea bargains will be more beneficial than harmful to defendants.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        "I'm not sure why you would feel better if defendants went through a kangaroo court where justice is dispensed within days and the convicted are forgotten just as quickly, but I certainly don't see how that would lead to any decrease in wrongful convictions." What the hell? Where did I express a preference for anything like this?

by mpyne 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

And this, too, is part of the problem. American prosecutors want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to threaten people with "95 years in prison!" But at the same time they want to show that they don't punish people with undue harshness. Is a foreign country supposed to ignore the maximum penalty an extradition candidate faces, and go with the particulars of how the US justice system usually works, especially when prosecutors will happily threaten people with the theoretical maximum whenever it suits them?

mpyne 13y ago
> American prosecutors want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to threaten people with "95 years in prison!" Unless you're of the opinion that public defenders and defense lawyers are simpletons who can barely figure out how to breathe, it doesn't matter what the prosecution tries to say to the accused. You can say it's all for show as part of a "trial by media", but defense attorneys are just as eager to do that, and such a thing has no bearing on the legal process anyways. Foreign countries should worried about the maximum conceivable penalty (which is even higher than plausible, but still much lower than the theoretically possible).
- mikeash 13y ago
  The main purpose of the threats is to convince defendants to plea bargain, and it serves this purpose extremely well. Roughly 90% of American defendants accept a plea bargain, and many of them are innocent. These threats matter a lot. I mean, unless you're of the opinion that prosecutors are simpletons who can barely figure out how to breathe, they must serve some purpose given that they keep being made! Prosecutors want to use massive potential sentences to browbeat defendants into waiving their right to a trial. But, surprise! Some people take you at your word, and make other decisions based on threats like that. Again: the fact that the massive potential sentence isn't realistic is a bug, not a feature, in the US system.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Again though, the defendant's own lawyer is able to instruct his or her client on the actual potential sentence that the defendant is likely to face. It is not a number that can be calculated a priori as it depends highly on the charges for which a conviction is actually obtained, what types of evidence survive (or don't survive) the trial process, and way more factors than can be encompassed in a straight scalar value. That imprecision in sentencing certainly annoys the technical minded, but it is a feature compared to what happened before, where you sentence depended much more on the judge you were assigned and how the judge felt that day, than on what you were actually convicted of. Certainly most defendants do plea bargain, but you have provided no explanation why the reason plea bargains occur is related to the maximum sentence quoted for a press release. It is, I would say, just as likely that the reason people take the plea is that even the realistic sentence under the Federal sentencing guidelines, as explained by the defense counsel, is still harsh enough that the plea bargain represents a better deal than playing the acquittal lottery. Obviously the prosecutor will point out that the maximum theoretical sentence is something completely different, that's their job in the adversarial legal system. If it helps in securing a conviction it's mission accomplished. Likewise it is the job of the defense to explain that the likely sentence is something way different, that a given plea bargain is a joke, that evidence can be thrown out in court, and that entire cases can be thrown out on technicalities. I'm not sure why you would feel better if defendants went through a kangaroo court where justice is dispensed within days and the convicted are forgotten just as quickly, but I certainly don't see how that would lead to any decrease in wrongful convictions. Someday we'll give up on this war on drugs, and that will help with the backlog, but even then plea bargains will be more beneficial than harmful to defendants.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      "I'm not sure why you would feel better if defendants went through a kangaroo court where justice is dispensed within days and the convicted are forgotten just as quickly, but I certainly don't see how that would lead to any decrease in wrongful convictions." What the hell? Where did I express a preference for anything like this?