5 ms·

I thought this was an interesting article, but the following jumped out at me: >Ronald Thompson’s case, and so many others, reveals that prosecutors don’t thin

I thought this was an interesting article, but the following jumped out at me: >Ronald Thompson’s case, and so many others, reveals that prosecutors don’t think that twenty-year sentences for shooting into the ground constitute justice. Why else would the plea bargain stay on the table. The reason (in a majority of cases) plea bargains stay on the table is not because the prosecutors don't think the mandatory minimums constitute justice, rather the prosecutors do not have an incentive or otherwise want to go to trial. Therefore, they dangle the carrot and stick in front of the defendant (e.g. in this case, take 3 years or roll the dice and if convicted serve the minimum 20). So why don't prosecutors want to go to trial? Because the have extremely large case loads, they could not possibly take them all to trial, but to even take one to trial requires exponentially more work than getting the defendant to accept a plea. Additionally, if a prosecutor does all the extra work required with going to trial (win or lose) they do not get paid for all the extra work.

res0nat0r 13y ago
> Why else would the plea bargain stay on the table. > So why don't prosecutors want to go to trial? Because the have extremely large case loads, ... These two items can both be true in the eyes of the prosecutor yes?
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  The problem appears when no. 2 is true, but no. 1 is not. Now we have a conflict of interests.
elipsey 13y ago
I gather that in some legal systems, the German system for example, mandatory prosecution of every crime is required because of this problem. It seems worthwhile to ask what a good incentive for prosecutors would look like. For example, an incentive that rewards winning a trial more strongly than excepting a plea.
- iwwr 13y ago
  The penalties are just too large and so very few are risking going to trial. Also, if prosecutors were actually forced to prosecute every case in court, it would either block the criminal justice system, or force politicians to drastically reduce penalties (and look "soft on crime").
  - warfangle 13y ago
    Or dramatically increase taxes in order to pay for more prosecutors and judges and courtrooms.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  From friends in state prosecutors offices in a couple of states, I understand that there is a professional incentive to try cases on a fairly regular basis. Even though the office as a whole benefits from plea bargains, it's trial work that is apparently most respected and taken into consideration for promotions and the like. I personally find the German system preferable, I think there is something very sick about a system that has so many cases it is in danger of collapsing under its own weight. Rather than striving for efficiency short cuts, like rampent plea bargaining accomplished via the lever of over harsh trial sentences, we should step back and figure out why there are so many alleged criminals to begin with.
  - pyre 13y ago
    > why there are so many alleged criminals to begin with. Obviously because we're not being harsh enough on them! /s
  - awjr 13y ago
    I'm guessing due to prohibition aka War on Drugs. I'm rather in favour of legalising and taxing all drugs. Then releasing all prisoners convicted on drug possession/supply.
  - socialist_coder 13y ago
    I'm an American living in Germany now but I have no clue what the German system is. Can you enlighten me or share a link that explains it well?
rhizome 13y ago
As the Kelly Thomas case illustrates, it's also possible that some prosecutors are not good at winning jury trials. Additionally, if a prosecutor does all the extra work required with going to trial (win or lose) they do not get paid for all the extra work. So much for civic duty. :/
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  I really can't imagine a prosecutor to be compassionate or caring for civic duty.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Which explains why prosecutors tend to be extremely vindictive when they are forced to take a case to trial, seeking extreme sentences which pervert justice (but which also serve to further encourage other defendants to pursue plea bargains).
- wavefunction 13y ago
  "vindictive" sounds nothing like "professional"
smsm42 13y ago
And they have extremely large case loads because Congress creates over 60 new federal crimes every year, and because the same prosecutors prosecute thousands of acts that harm nobody and should not be prosecuted. If they were made to actually work for prosecuting them, then maybe they would wake up to the reality of over-criminalization and asked for a reform. However, if they can just make a conveyor belt type system where they just can quickly extort plea bargains and move on, of course no problem for them.
- joshontheweb 13y ago
  60 a year? really? Im genuinely interested in this. do you have a source?
  - smsm42 13y ago
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/revisiting-the-explosive-growth-of-federal-crimes http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/revisiting-... I miscalculated the average a bit: it's 56.5 per year, not 60 (I thought it is 7 year period but it was 8 years). The growth of federal crimes continues unabated. The increase of 452 over the eight-year period between 2000 and 2007 averages 56.5 crimes per year-roughly the same rate at which Congress created new crimes in the 1980s and 1990s.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

res0nat0r 13y ago

> Why else would the plea bargain stay on the table. > So why don't prosecutors want to go to trial? Because the have extremely large case loads, ... These two items can both be true in the eyes of the prosecutor yes?

TeMPOraL 13y ago
The problem appears when no. 2 is true, but no. 1 is not. Now we have a conflict of interests.

elipsey 13y ago

I gather that in some legal systems, the German system for example, mandatory prosecution of every crime is required because of this problem. It seems worthwhile to ask what a good incentive for prosecutors would look like. For example, an incentive that rewards winning a trial more strongly than excepting a plea.

iwwr 13y ago
The penalties are just too large and so very few are risking going to trial. Also, if prosecutors were actually forced to prosecute every case in court, it would either block the criminal justice system, or force politicians to drastically reduce penalties (and look "soft on crime").
- warfangle 13y ago
  Or dramatically increase taxes in order to pay for more prosecutors and judges and courtrooms.
bradleyjg 13y ago
From friends in state prosecutors offices in a couple of states, I understand that there is a professional incentive to try cases on a fairly regular basis. Even though the office as a whole benefits from plea bargains, it's trial work that is apparently most respected and taken into consideration for promotions and the like. I personally find the German system preferable, I think there is something very sick about a system that has so many cases it is in danger of collapsing under its own weight. Rather than striving for efficiency short cuts, like rampent plea bargaining accomplished via the lever of over harsh trial sentences, we should step back and figure out why there are so many alleged criminals to begin with.
- pyre 13y ago
  > why there are so many alleged criminals to begin with. Obviously because we're not being harsh enough on them! /s
- awjr 13y ago
  I'm guessing due to prohibition aka War on Drugs. I'm rather in favour of legalising and taxing all drugs. Then releasing all prisoners convicted on drug possession/supply.
- socialist_coder 13y ago
  I'm an American living in Germany now but I have no clue what the German system is. Can you enlighten me or share a link that explains it well?

rhizome 13y ago

As the Kelly Thomas case illustrates, it's also possible that some prosecutors are not good at winning jury trials. Additionally, if a prosecutor does all the extra work required with going to trial (win or lose) they do not get paid for all the extra work. So much for civic duty. :/

vdaniuk 13y ago
I really can't imagine a prosecutor to be compassionate or caring for civic duty.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Which explains why prosecutors tend to be extremely vindictive when they are forced to take a case to trial, seeking extreme sentences which pervert justice (but which also serve to further encourage other defendants to pursue plea bargains).

wavefunction 13y ago
"vindictive" sounds nothing like "professional"

smsm42 13y ago

And they have extremely large case loads because Congress creates over 60 new federal crimes every year, and because the same prosecutors prosecute thousands of acts that harm nobody and should not be prosecuted. If they were made to actually work for prosecuting them, then maybe they would wake up to the reality of over-criminalization and asked for a reform. However, if they can just make a conveyor belt type system where they just can quickly extort plea bargains and move on, of course no problem for them.

joshontheweb 13y ago
60 a year? really? Im genuinely interested in this. do you have a source?
- smsm42 13y ago
  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/revisiting-the-explosive-growth-of-federal-crimes http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/revisiting-... I miscalculated the average a bit: it's 56.5 per year, not 60 (I thought it is 7 year period but it was 8 years). The growth of federal crimes continues unabated. The increase of 452 over the eight-year period between 2000 and 2007 averages 56.5 crimes per year-roughly the same rate at which Congress created new crimes in the 1980s and 1990s.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]