5 ms·

Plea-bargaining goes against the fundament of innocent until proven guilty. It puts the requirement on the accused to know for certain that they can prove their

Plea-bargaining goes against the fundament of innocent until proven guilty. It puts the requirement on the accused to know for certain that they can prove their innocence, to avoid the ludicrous sentence. That is, there may be a motivation for pleading guilty even when you are not.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 12y ago
How exactly does plea-bargaining do that? Prosecutors don't determine sentences; judges do, and the sentences they choose are circumscribed by very detailed guidelines.
- maurits 12y ago
  Sobering read: "Plea Bargaining and Torture in light of the Aaron Swartz case" [1] [1]: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/15/plea-bargaining-and-torture-in-light-of-the-aaron-swartz-case/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/15/plea-bargainin...
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This read starts out and is premised on a falsehood: An interview with Aaron Swartz‘s defense attorney reveals that, though the government was threatening Aaron with between 30 and 50 years in prison if he went to trial and was convicted. Not only was Swartz not threatened with 30 years, but the prosecutors themselves threatened him with (an itself implausible) single-digit-year sentence. Swartz's own attorney thought it likely that even were he convicted, he wouldn't end up serving a custodial sentence. It sucks when this case gets brought up, because the only way to get to the truth of it requires people to sound like they're defending Steve Heymann, the prosecutor in the case. There was a great deal wrong with the case. It's just that a 30-year sentence wasn't part of it.
    - loopdoend 12y ago
      The government was definitely threatening him with over 30 years, perhaps not privately, but it is not a falsehood. "If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." (http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....) Not pleading out would mean that the offer of a lower sentence is off the table, and the prosecutor would push for the threatened maximum sentence.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        No. That DOJ pres release is also false.
    - justcommenting 12y ago
      These may not have been the only charges and this may not have been the only case he was facing, e.g. WL's grand jury continues in secrecy to this day. Your assertions are narrowly quite correct, but may not be generally so.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        That's a non-falsifiable argument.
- scj 12y ago
  There was an article about a month ago that explained the asymmetry in the American court system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8544775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8544775

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 12y ago

How exactly does plea-bargaining do that? Prosecutors don't determine sentences; judges do, and the sentences they choose are circumscribed by very detailed guidelines.

maurits 12y ago
Sobering read: "Plea Bargaining and Torture in light of the Aaron Swartz case" [1] [1]: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/15/plea-bargaining-and-torture-in-light-of-the-aaron-swartz-case/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/15/plea-bargainin...
- tptacek 12y ago
  This read starts out and is premised on a falsehood: An interview with Aaron Swartz‘s defense attorney reveals that, though the government was threatening Aaron with between 30 and 50 years in prison if he went to trial and was convicted. Not only was Swartz not threatened with 30 years, but the prosecutors themselves threatened him with (an itself implausible) single-digit-year sentence. Swartz's own attorney thought it likely that even were he convicted, he wouldn't end up serving a custodial sentence. It sucks when this case gets brought up, because the only way to get to the truth of it requires people to sound like they're defending Steve Heymann, the prosecutor in the case. There was a great deal wrong with the case. It's just that a 30-year sentence wasn't part of it.
  - loopdoend 12y ago
    The government was definitely threatening him with over 30 years, perhaps not privately, but it is not a falsehood. "If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." (http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....) Not pleading out would mean that the offer of a lower sentence is off the table, and the prosecutor would push for the threatened maximum sentence.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      No. That DOJ pres release is also false.
  - justcommenting 12y ago
    These may not have been the only charges and this may not have been the only case he was facing, e.g. WL's grand jury continues in secrecy to this day. Your assertions are narrowly quite correct, but may not be generally so.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      That's a non-falsifiable argument.
scj 12y ago
There was an article about a month ago that explained the asymmetry in the American court system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8544775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8544775