19 ms·

Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

324 points by colmvp 12y ago

japhyr 12y ago
I'm a high school teacher, and we are looking at bringing restorative justice practices into our district. Just starting to dig into the restorative justice framework gives us a stronger way to think about dealing with discipline within a school system. As I start to have deeper conversations with people well versed in restorative justice, I'm starting to hear really concrete ideas and practices for reforming our justice system in the US. Edit: To clarify, restorative justice avoids the punitive approach to dealing with crime. Instead, it asks what harm has been done to what relationships when a crime has been committed. The first goal is then to work to restore those relationships. This is an incredibly valuable perspective in schools, where relationships are central to so much of what should be happening in a learning environment. It's a pretty good lens for examining situations in the larger community as well. One resource, from a school-based perspective: http://www.healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/ http://www.healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/ And a more general perspective: http://www.restorativejustice.org/ http://www.restorativejustice.org/
- throw_away 12y ago
  Also discussed in the most recent This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/538/is-this-working http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/538/i...
- kashkhan 12y ago
  I hope you succeed in changing the system. School for most kids is "prison-lite". Like if you don't show up on time for roll call, you get punished by being held in recess or forced to pick up garbage around the school. And this is not some third world school I am talking about. This is schools in cupertino, one of the wealthiest and most "progressive" areas in the world. http://www.sethgodin.com/sg/docs/stopstealingdreamsscreen.pdf http://www.sethgodin.com/sg/docs/stopstealingdreamsscreen.pd... > Years ago, five friends and a I were put in charge of a 150 rowdy fifth-graders for a long weekend up in Canada. It was almost impossible to be heard over the din—until I stumbled onto the solution. All we had to say was, “points will be deducted,” and compliance appeared. There weren’t any points and there wasn’t any prize, but merely the threat of lost points was sufficient.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >School for most kids is "prison-lite". The parallels are numerous. You are legally compelled show up under threat of violence (although usually targeted at the child's parents, in the form of being arrested). You are not free to leave when you desire. You lose certain basic human rights while you are there (e.g. [1,2,3,4]). You are subject to the arbitrary authority of non-elected persons. Until recently, you were subject to physical violence at the hands of these persons. Social cliques and violence are relatively common. In many situations, self-expression, experimentation, and curiosity is discouraged. I know, as a child, public school left a bad taste in my mouth for some of these reasons. [1] Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls [2] Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser [3] New Jersey v. T.L.O. [4] Morse v. Frederick
    - logicchains 12y ago
      At least there's one good thing about it: it's a great motivator to work hard and get rich if one is planning on having kids, in order to avoid sending them to public school.
      - logicchains 12y ago
        N.b. to downvoters: The parent comment was a possibly poor attempt at irony. I don't actually think there's anything good about US public schools.
        mhurron 12y ago
        > I don't actually think there's anything good about US public schools. It's a good thing no one here actually went to one isn't it.
    - hypertexthero 12y ago
      Reminds me of Orwell's [Such, Such Were The Joys](http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/e_joys http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/e_joys).
- barbudorojo 12y ago
  There are many cases in which one can't restore the harm. If someone dies, you can restore that. Many times the harm is psychological and is not easy to restore. I don't know if restorative justice prevent or diminish the probability of further crimes, but a good justice system employ punishment as an excellent inhibitor of crime. People are sensible to long term sentences in jail.
jMyles 12y ago
I've studied quite a bit of criminal justice and constitutional law, but one thing that still eludes my understanding is the incentive structure. Why do prosecutors seek to put innocent people in prison? What's in it for them?
- iamdave 12y ago
  Looks great when they try to run for office.
- techsupporter 12y ago
  A combination of "something must be done!" and "well, even if he's later let out he must have been up to no good to have even been arrested."
- jdechko 12y ago
  It makes their job easier. If they have 100 cases to prosecute and they can get 95% to enter a plea deal, now they only have 5 cases to worry about. If 5% of those who plead guilty are actually innocent, the prosecutor doesn't really care because it's not a case he/she has to go to trial over.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 12y ago
  I think the most basic explanation is that lower crime rates means fewer prosecutors. Prosecutors probably estimate (and probably accurately) that putting people in prison for certain crimes is politically popular. In some cases, I suspect prison and police lobbies can influence things.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Conviction rates are a career metric for prosecutors.
  - arjie 12y ago
    A striking incidence of Goodhart's Law: (though it's questionable if this was a good measure in the first place) > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Interestingly, even if we added wrongful conviction rates as a disincentive, it would probably not affect the end result. It isn't impressive being an 80% prosecutor. It's much better to aim to be a 95% prosecutor and take the risk of a wrongful prosecution. Go big or go home. I wonder if there's a better way of determining if someone is good at a job. I mean, it is natural for us to like people who do really difficult things, but if many people take great risks, there's likely to be at least one who just happens to succeed due to circumstances. Did he succeed because he's better or because there's a 5% chance of succeeding and he just happened to do so? It seems like he succeeded against all odds, but what if that was just pure luck and it seems impressive because we don't see it as throwing a hundred darts (a hundred prosecutors) at a board and seeing one strike the bull's eye (one with no wrongful convictions)?
rayiner 12y ago
NB: the author, Jed Rakoff, is a prominent federal judge in New York City.
Svip 12y ago
Mandatory minimums seems rather cruel. In my country - Denmark - sentences are usually limited to 15 years (life in prison, actually means that after 16 years, your case will be reheard by the judicial system; in serious crimes, these verdicts are usually predictable (i.e. keeping the convicted in prison)). The fact that a state can demand a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for selling heroin is outrageous. That's not to say, that there aren't convictions here that don't have the appearance of mandatory minimums, but not by law, merely by practice. (Also, I find no evidence to suggest that mandatory minimums have done anything to reduce crime in the US.)
- Broken_Hippo 12y ago
  You are correct - but the US system is different. The main goal of Denmark's prison system is likely centered around making sure people are reformed when they get out. The loss of freedom itself is the main punishment. The US system focuses much less on reforming people, but instead focuses on punishment. Loss of freedom isn't enough. Mandatory minimums do have cruel outcomes: Usually the minimums were put in place as a political ploy (we'll make sure those bad people get put away for a long time - to keep your kids safe at night). I'm pretty sure that evidence doesnt' exist - any that does is likely against mandatory minimums.
  - Svip 12y ago
    So the only reason mandatory minimums are not unconstitutional is because of the word 'and'? I guess you can then make any cruel punishment constitutional by making it usual.
    - Broken_Hippo 12y ago
      Heh. Unfortunately it is more complicated than that. I think the line includes cruelty along with the 'and' to attempt to put some sort of limits on punishment and to make sure the punishments matches what society knows as 'uncruel', though in practice it doesn't work out as well as imagined. I'm not sure if anyone has appealed mandatory minimums on the basis that they are cruel and unusual punishment: They probably have research to back up their claim. This is probably the true reason they aren't unconstitutional - because you have to appeal and sue (sometimes pretty far) to try to get those turned over. The other option is for the public to pressure legislature into changing the laws, and considering the current climate in Washington, I doubt that is going to happen soon enough.
ggchappell 12y ago
The end was interesting. Particularly the part that begins as follows: > I am driven, in the end, to advocate what a few jurisdictions, notably Connecticut and Florida, have begun experimenting with: involving judges in the plea-bargaining process. Worth a read.
abecedarius 12y ago
History rhymes: see this article on self-incrimination under the threat of torture. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=crosskey_lectures http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
- eru 12y ago
  Thanks! Excellent read. Perhaps submit that paper directly to HN?
  - abecedarius 12y ago
    Feel free. :) It's probably been submitted already; I think I got it from an HN thread on Aaron Swartz.
bsder 12y ago
The real problem is that we allow the prosecuting attorney to "strike" possible jurors from the juror pool. The defense should get this advantage, but the prosecution should not. If the prosecution has to stack the jury to get a conviction, it doesn't have a proper case. Another problem is that the prosecution is looking for easily influenced jurors rather than diligent ones. Once had a hung jury on this where one juror was voting guilty and wouldn't budge. Our take: "Look, yes, he is guilty of possession. He had the drugs. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S CHARGED WITH. He's charged with conspiracy and he wasn't even in the country at the time the conspiracy was supposedly discussed. The government HASN'T PROVED ITS CASE." Nope. Guilty. Won't budge. And she was a grand juror. So much for the safety check of a grand jury. Sigh.
- vvpan 12y ago
  Well as I understand the article argues that all of this happens before the jury has any say? So you are talking of a separate problem?
  - jeremyjh 12y ago
    Well anything that increases the prosecution's chances of winning a case will increase their power in plea bargaining as well.
  - bsder 12y ago
    The prosecution doesn't really fear losing a case. If the prosecution actually lost more cases that went to trial they would be far less aggressive when seeking plea bargains.
    - borski 12y ago
      Wouldn't this make them more aggressive when seeking plea bargains? As they /really/ don't want to go to trial for fear of losing the case?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
nullc 12y ago
Some background on the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff
analog31 12y ago
In my view the right to a jury trial doesn't just protect the innocent, but provides the system with much needed oversight. In a trial, the prosecution has to make its case, not just before the judge and jury, but in principle, before the entire public. And the public gets to see the quality of the evidence being presented. Bypassing the trial lets the prosecution work in darkness, and darkness invites corruption or incompetency, even if only in the name of getting the job done more efficiently. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe the problem isn't the plea bargain, but the pleading process itself. It might be less subject to abuse if the prosecution had to present its evidence before the court and in public, and if the judge could reject the plea and compel a trial.
- nzealand 12y ago
  Motions can be passed prior to trial to question the validity of certain charges. The problem is there are a lot of federal judges who let prosecutors continually change the charges, change the rational for the charges, add on whole new charges in an attempt to force a plea bargin etc...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
downandout 12y ago
This article is pretty much dead-on. Our laws have become more broad with absurdly high maximum penalties, and this extorts guilty pleas. For example, an internet merchant accused of failing to deliver 10 $200 orders could be charged with 10 counts of Wire Fraud and face a potential sentence of 300 years in prison (up to 30 years per count). Thus, when this hypothetical web merchant is offered a deal for 6 months, he will take it, regardless of whether he may have won at trial or not. The system is designed to extort guilty pleas. The statistics are pretty straightforward: if you are standing in court facing charges, you've already lost. You just may not know it yet.
Rapzid 12y ago
In a way this seems like just another example corporate culture seep into our government. The prosecutors are gaming the system HARD and completely against the spirit of the system, but it's legal so it's OKAY. Meta justice. I know somebody who had some charges brought against them about 10 years ago. It was a he-said/she-said and the state had no real evidence. From the get go they were trying to get a plea bargain. The accuser even recanted, signing a witnessed statement to the effect that they lied about the whole thing. Still, they pressed forward. Delaying meetings, pushing out dates, and generally drawing the whole thing out. They waited until the very day the statute of limitation ran out to close the case. I've seen first hand how much leverage they have over people. These types of charges, even pending, can completely wreck your life. And the stress. I remember everyone saying he should take the plea bargain, but I agreed that if he was innocent he had a duty to tell them to stuff it and hold out. Justice, pride; I GOT it. We were young. Now though, at 30.. If I were in a similar situation I'm just not sure what I would do.
csense 12y ago
We should make the maximum sentence that can be sought at trial a small multiple of the minimum sentence. So the defendant is looking at a tradeoff of at most a year in jail vs. three years in jail. Giving defendants a choice between a certain year in jail if they plead guilty or 15 years in jail if they're convicted, it becomes basically right for them to accept the former just from a risk management perspective. Playing a game of high-stakes poker with your freedom on the line makes a mockery of the very concept of justice.
vskr 12y ago
Will making prosecutors accountable for wrongful conviction keep them in check?
pessimizer 12y ago
I did because I was offered a plea for no time (other than the night I had already spent in jail), no fine, and it would be expunged from my record in two years. At least, that's what the public defender told me during the single minute I spoke to him while walking down the hallway to court. It didn't matter any more that I hadn't done anything (not just anything wrong, but anything - I had been arrested while sitting on the sidewalk talking to friends) the important thing was being free from a potential three year sentence for 'criminal trespassing' at 18.

324 points by colmvp 12y ago

I'm a high school teacher, and we are looking at bringing restorative justice practices into our district. Just starting to dig into the restorative justice framework gives us a stronger way to think about dealing with discipline within a school system. As I start to have deeper conversations with people well versed in restorative justice, I'm starting to hear really concrete ideas and practices for reforming our justice system in the US. Edit: To clarify, restorative justice avoids the punitive approach to dealing with crime. Instead, it asks what harm has been done to what relationships when a crime has been committed. The first goal is then to work to restore those relationships. This is an incredibly valuable perspective in schools, where relationships are central to so much of what should be happening in a learning environment. It's a pretty good lens for examining situations in the larger community as well. One resource, from a school-based perspective: http://www.healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/ http://www.healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/ And a more general perspective: http://www.restorativejustice.org/ http://www.restorativejustice.org/

throw_away 12y ago
Also discussed in the most recent This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/538/is-this-working http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/538/i...
kashkhan 12y ago
I hope you succeed in changing the system. School for most kids is "prison-lite". Like if you don't show up on time for roll call, you get punished by being held in recess or forced to pick up garbage around the school. And this is not some third world school I am talking about. This is schools in cupertino, one of the wealthiest and most "progressive" areas in the world. http://www.sethgodin.com/sg/docs/stopstealingdreamsscreen.pdf http://www.sethgodin.com/sg/docs/stopstealingdreamsscreen.pd... > Years ago, five friends and a I were put in charge of a 150 rowdy fifth-graders for a long weekend up in Canada. It was almost impossible to be heard over the din—until I stumbled onto the solution. All we had to say was, “points will be deducted,” and compliance appeared. There weren’t any points and there wasn’t any prize, but merely the threat of lost points was sufficient.
- wyager 12y ago
  >School for most kids is "prison-lite". The parallels are numerous. You are legally compelled show up under threat of violence (although usually targeted at the child's parents, in the form of being arrested). You are not free to leave when you desire. You lose certain basic human rights while you are there (e.g. [1,2,3,4]). You are subject to the arbitrary authority of non-elected persons. Until recently, you were subject to physical violence at the hands of these persons. Social cliques and violence are relatively common. In many situations, self-expression, experimentation, and curiosity is discouraged. I know, as a child, public school left a bad taste in my mouth for some of these reasons. [1] Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls [2] Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser [3] New Jersey v. T.L.O. [4] Morse v. Frederick
  - logicchains 12y ago
    At least there's one good thing about it: it's a great motivator to work hard and get rich if one is planning on having kids, in order to avoid sending them to public school.
    - logicchains 12y ago
      N.b. to downvoters: The parent comment was a possibly poor attempt at irony. I don't actually think there's anything good about US public schools.
      - mhurron 12y ago
        > I don't actually think there's anything good about US public schools. It's a good thing no one here actually went to one isn't it.
  - hypertexthero 12y ago
    Reminds me of Orwell's [Such, Such Were The Joys](http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/e_joys http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/joys/english/e_joys).
barbudorojo 12y ago
There are many cases in which one can't restore the harm. If someone dies, you can restore that. Many times the harm is psychological and is not easy to restore. I don't know if restorative justice prevent or diminish the probability of further crimes, but a good justice system employ punishment as an excellent inhibitor of crime. People are sensible to long term sentences in jail.

jMyles 12y ago

I've studied quite a bit of criminal justice and constitutional law, but one thing that still eludes my understanding is the incentive structure. Why do prosecutors seek to put innocent people in prison? What's in it for them?

iamdave 12y ago
Looks great when they try to run for office.
techsupporter 12y ago
A combination of "something must be done!" and "well, even if he's later let out he must have been up to no good to have even been arrested."
jdechko 12y ago
It makes their job easier. If they have 100 cases to prosecute and they can get 95% to enter a plea deal, now they only have 5 cases to worry about. If 5% of those who plead guilty are actually innocent, the prosecutor doesn't really care because it's not a case he/she has to go to trial over.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
baddox 12y ago
I think the most basic explanation is that lower crime rates means fewer prosecutors. Prosecutors probably estimate (and probably accurately) that putting people in prison for certain crimes is politically popular. In some cases, I suspect prison and police lobbies can influence things.
tptacek 12y ago
Conviction rates are a career metric for prosecutors.
- arjie 12y ago
  A striking incidence of Goodhart's Law: (though it's questionable if this was a good measure in the first place) > When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Interestingly, even if we added wrongful conviction rates as a disincentive, it would probably not affect the end result. It isn't impressive being an 80% prosecutor. It's much better to aim to be a 95% prosecutor and take the risk of a wrongful prosecution. Go big or go home. I wonder if there's a better way of determining if someone is good at a job. I mean, it is natural for us to like people who do really difficult things, but if many people take great risks, there's likely to be at least one who just happens to succeed due to circumstances. Did he succeed because he's better or because there's a 5% chance of succeeding and he just happened to do so? It seems like he succeeded against all odds, but what if that was just pure luck and it seems impressive because we don't see it as throwing a hundred darts (a hundred prosecutors) at a board and seeing one strike the bull's eye (one with no wrongful convictions)?

rayiner 12y ago

NB: the author, Jed Rakoff, is a prominent federal judge in New York City.

Svip 12y ago

Mandatory minimums seems rather cruel. In my country - Denmark - sentences are usually limited to 15 years (life in prison, actually means that after 16 years, your case will be reheard by the judicial system; in serious crimes, these verdicts are usually predictable (i.e. keeping the convicted in prison)). The fact that a state can demand a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for selling heroin is outrageous. That's not to say, that there aren't convictions here that don't have the appearance of mandatory minimums, but not by law, merely by practice. (Also, I find no evidence to suggest that mandatory minimums have done anything to reduce crime in the US.)

Broken_Hippo 12y ago
You are correct - but the US system is different. The main goal of Denmark's prison system is likely centered around making sure people are reformed when they get out. The loss of freedom itself is the main punishment. The US system focuses much less on reforming people, but instead focuses on punishment. Loss of freedom isn't enough. Mandatory minimums do have cruel outcomes: Usually the minimums were put in place as a political ploy (we'll make sure those bad people get put away for a long time - to keep your kids safe at night). I'm pretty sure that evidence doesnt' exist - any that does is likely against mandatory minimums.
- Svip 12y ago
  So the only reason mandatory minimums are not unconstitutional is because of the word 'and'? I guess you can then make any cruel punishment constitutional by making it usual.
  - Broken_Hippo 12y ago
    Heh. Unfortunately it is more complicated than that. I think the line includes cruelty along with the 'and' to attempt to put some sort of limits on punishment and to make sure the punishments matches what society knows as 'uncruel', though in practice it doesn't work out as well as imagined. I'm not sure if anyone has appealed mandatory minimums on the basis that they are cruel and unusual punishment: They probably have research to back up their claim. This is probably the true reason they aren't unconstitutional - because you have to appeal and sue (sometimes pretty far) to try to get those turned over. The other option is for the public to pressure legislature into changing the laws, and considering the current climate in Washington, I doubt that is going to happen soon enough.

ggchappell 12y ago

The end was interesting. Particularly the part that begins as follows: > I am driven, in the end, to advocate what a few jurisdictions, notably Connecticut and Florida, have begun experimenting with: involving judges in the plea-bargaining process. Worth a read.

abecedarius 12y ago

History rhymes: see this article on self-incrimination under the threat of torture. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=crosskey_lectures http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

eru 12y ago
Thanks! Excellent read. Perhaps submit that paper directly to HN?
- abecedarius 12y ago
  Feel free. :) It's probably been submitted already; I think I got it from an HN thread on Aaron Swartz.

bsder 12y ago

The real problem is that we allow the prosecuting attorney to "strike" possible jurors from the juror pool. The defense should get this advantage, but the prosecution should not. If the prosecution has to stack the jury to get a conviction, it doesn't have a proper case. Another problem is that the prosecution is looking for easily influenced jurors rather than diligent ones. Once had a hung jury on this where one juror was voting guilty and wouldn't budge. Our take: "Look, yes, he is guilty of possession. He had the drugs. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S CHARGED WITH. He's charged with conspiracy and he wasn't even in the country at the time the conspiracy was supposedly discussed. The government HASN'T PROVED ITS CASE." Nope. Guilty. Won't budge. And she was a grand juror. So much for the safety check of a grand jury. Sigh.

vvpan 12y ago
Well as I understand the article argues that all of this happens before the jury has any say? So you are talking of a separate problem?
- jeremyjh 12y ago
  Well anything that increases the prosecution's chances of winning a case will increase their power in plea bargaining as well.
- bsder 12y ago
  The prosecution doesn't really fear losing a case. If the prosecution actually lost more cases that went to trial they would be far less aggressive when seeking plea bargains.
  - borski 12y ago
    Wouldn't this make them more aggressive when seeking plea bargains? As they /really/ don't want to go to trial for fear of losing the case?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

nullc 12y ago

Some background on the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff

analog31 12y ago

In my view the right to a jury trial doesn't just protect the innocent, but provides the system with much needed oversight. In a trial, the prosecution has to make its case, not just before the judge and jury, but in principle, before the entire public. And the public gets to see the quality of the evidence being presented. Bypassing the trial lets the prosecution work in darkness, and darkness invites corruption or incompetency, even if only in the name of getting the job done more efficiently. I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe the problem isn't the plea bargain, but the pleading process itself. It might be less subject to abuse if the prosecution had to present its evidence before the court and in public, and if the judge could reject the plea and compel a trial.

nzealand 12y ago
Motions can be passed prior to trial to question the validity of certain charges. The problem is there are a lot of federal judges who let prosecutors continually change the charges, change the rational for the charges, add on whole new charges in an attempt to force a plea bargin etc...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

downandout 12y ago

This article is pretty much dead-on. Our laws have become more broad with absurdly high maximum penalties, and this extorts guilty pleas. For example, an internet merchant accused of failing to deliver 10 $200 orders could be charged with 10 counts of Wire Fraud and face a potential sentence of 300 years in prison (up to 30 years per count). Thus, when this hypothetical web merchant is offered a deal for 6 months, he will take it, regardless of whether he may have won at trial or not. The system is designed to extort guilty pleas. The statistics are pretty straightforward: if you are standing in court facing charges, you've already lost. You just may not know it yet.

Rapzid 12y ago

In a way this seems like just another example corporate culture seep into our government. The prosecutors are gaming the system HARD and completely against the spirit of the system, but it's legal so it's OKAY. Meta justice. I know somebody who had some charges brought against them about 10 years ago. It was a he-said/she-said and the state had no real evidence. From the get go they were trying to get a plea bargain. The accuser even recanted, signing a witnessed statement to the effect that they lied about the whole thing. Still, they pressed forward. Delaying meetings, pushing out dates, and generally drawing the whole thing out. They waited until the very day the statute of limitation ran out to close the case. I've seen first hand how much leverage they have over people. These types of charges, even pending, can completely wreck your life. And the stress. I remember everyone saying he should take the plea bargain, but I agreed that if he was innocent he had a duty to tell them to stuff it and hold out. Justice, pride; I GOT it. We were young. Now though, at 30.. If I were in a similar situation I'm just not sure what I would do.

csense 12y ago

We should make the maximum sentence that can be sought at trial a small multiple of the minimum sentence. So the defendant is looking at a tradeoff of at most a year in jail vs. three years in jail. Giving defendants a choice between a certain year in jail if they plead guilty or 15 years in jail if they're convicted, it becomes basically right for them to accept the former just from a risk management perspective. Playing a game of high-stakes poker with your freedom on the line makes a mockery of the very concept of justice.

vskr 12y ago

Will making prosecutors accountable for wrongful conviction keep them in check?

pessimizer 12y ago

I did because I was offered a plea for no time (other than the night I had already spent in jail), no fine, and it would be expunged from my record in two years. At least, that's what the public defender told me during the single minute I spoke to him while walking down the hallway to court. It didn't matter any more that I hadn't done anything (not just anything wrong, but anything - I had been arrested while sitting on the sidewalk talking to friends) the important thing was being free from a potential three year sentence for 'criminal trespassing' at 18.