3 ms·

I'll agree not to charge you with a felony and potentially lock in you in cage if you agree not to have a third party examine the facts of this case, and instea

I'll agree not to charge you with a felony and potentially lock in you in cage if you agree not to have a third party examine the facts of this case, and instead plead to a misdemeanor and pay a fine. Is there any possible reform for the disaster that is the plea system? I realize it's necessarily in some situations but the result is you are never not guilty of some crime. The prosecution virtually never loses. Truth and justice are nowhere to be found.

dobbsbob 12y ago
Since being a prosecutor is always a stepping stone to higher public office this is unlikely to change. Jurors can nullify laws however they are never told of that option http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html?_r=2&hp& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html?_r=2&...
dunmalg 12y ago
>Is there any possible reform for the disaster that is the plea system? Prohibit prosecutors from going to trial with charges any higher than they offered in the plea deal. If they offer to (say) let you plead to only misdemeanor drug possession, then they shouldn't be allowed to then prosecute for felony drug possession, resisting arrest, plus anything else they can think of simply because you dared to ask for a jury trial. Sentencing can still be somewhat variable, which would offer an actual incentive to those that know they're caught-holding-the-bag guilty, but would not be such a ruinously life destroying difference that it would frighten the innocent into taking the pllea when they did nothing wrong. The argument against plea bargain reform from prosecutors is always along the lines of "the courts could never handle all those cases, so we have to discourage jury trials as best we can", and frankly, that line of reasoning is bullshit. If there aren't enough resources to offer a jury trial to every offender, then I say we have a crisis of constitutional proportions, and dealing with it by gaming the system to force people to forego their rights simply to improve efficiency is a far more evil thing than most of the crimes people plead to.

dobbsbob 12y ago

Since being a prosecutor is always a stepping stone to higher public office this is unlikely to change. Jurors can nullify laws however they are never told of that option http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html?_r=2&hp& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/nyregion/26jury.html?_r=2&...

dunmalg 12y ago

>Is there any possible reform for the disaster that is the plea system? Prohibit prosecutors from going to trial with charges any higher than they offered in the plea deal. If they offer to (say) let you plead to only misdemeanor drug possession, then they shouldn't be allowed to then prosecute for felony drug possession, resisting arrest, plus anything else they can think of simply because you dared to ask for a jury trial. Sentencing can still be somewhat variable, which would offer an actual incentive to those that know they're caught-holding-the-bag guilty, but would not be such a ruinously life destroying difference that it would frighten the innocent into taking the pllea when they did nothing wrong. The argument against plea bargain reform from prosecutors is always along the lines of "the courts could never handle all those cases, so we have to discourage jury trials as best we can", and frankly, that line of reasoning is bullshit. If there aren't enough resources to offer a jury trial to every offender, then I say we have a crisis of constitutional proportions, and dealing with it by gaming the system to force people to forego their rights simply to improve efficiency is a far more evil thing than most of the crimes people plead to.