4 ms·

> A "coerced confession" places you under duress, a plea bargain does no such thing. My understanding was that plea bargains are criticised in the context of b

> A "coerced confession" places you under duress, a plea bargain does no such thing. My understanding was that plea bargains are criticised in the context of being offered as an alternative to fighting the case against a very significantly tougher sentence, so that you might win but you're much worse off if you lose. The criticism is then that there is certainly duress - not literally forcing your hand, but forcing a choice that is unreasonable given the nature of the crimes and (so is the claim) encourages confessions by people that are innocent or even just an overall sentencing distribution that ends up being a bad fit for the crimes. I could have understood wrong previous discussion of this though, or perhaps the problematic cases are not widespread.

Karunamon 12y ago
That's true of any criminal court case though. Imagine for a moment that the bargain wasn't a thing. It's you vs whatever the possible maximum sentence is for what you might be accused of. That hasn't changed. Adding an alternative is not coercion.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  You are missing the point here. People that are quite possibly innocent when intimidated with 'plead guilty and you get 5 years or try for innocence and we'll hit you with 50' will choose the 5 years guilty plea because they do not have the power of the state at their disposal to fight. This means that instead of justice being about truth finding it ends up being about conviction rates, which is gamifying the justice system in a way that is very detrimental to society. Couple it with such things as three strikes laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_compl... and a system that is punitive rather than corrective and you have a major problem. Plea bargaining could be put to good use but in practice it is used as a means of intimidation and to short-circuit the justice system.
- inclemnet 12y ago
  > Adding an alternative is not coercion. It's not simply the existence plea bargains that is coercion, I don't think anyone would argue that, and it's easy to find situations where plea bargains can be good things. But, this is not the point of the criticism - it is also easy to think of situations where plea bargains could be used to distort justice rather than to make it efficient. Wikipedia has a good discussion of this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargains#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargains#Controversy . You can disagree that these criticisms are a problem in practice, that is fine and something that could be discussed, but you must recognise that plea bargains could in principle be used in a coercive way, and that many people fear that this happens in practice.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    What I'm not understanding is the difference. What is the substantial difference of facing a possible 50 years for breaking some law, vs facing a possible 50 years for breaking some law (but we'll give you 10 if you plead guilty)? The penalty faced, the court case, none of that changes because you have a prosecutor that says "you face (max sentence) if you go to trial" - which is a factual statement, judges have great leeway in setting sentences between minimum and maximum within the guidelines. So again, where's the coercion? The fundamental dynamic of a person pleading their case in court, with the possibility of a lot of time in prison if they lose, has not changed due to the existence of the alternative. Aaron Swartz was in trouble the moment the system got ahold of him, not the moment the prosecutor said he could be facing the maximum sentence in prison.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      You are taking two steps at the time. A trial is supposed to determine your guilt and give you a fair shot at mounting a defense. Since hardly anybody can afford to go on a frontal collision course with the Federal government you'll see people pleading 'guilty' when in fact they are not. The few that take their chances with the justice process are then thrown the book at and then some in a strange kind of revenge for not accepting the plea bargain. Even if they win it will leave them bankrupt. From your words it is almost as if you think that there is no cost for the defendants associated with accepting the plea or the existence of the plea, but in real life there most definitely is. All of the resources of the system can be brought to bear on those few that have the temerity to refuse the plea.

Karunamon 12y ago

That's true of any criminal court case though. Imagine for a moment that the bargain wasn't a thing. It's you vs whatever the possible maximum sentence is for what you might be accused of. That hasn't changed. Adding an alternative is not coercion.

jacquesm 12y ago
You are missing the point here. People that are quite possibly innocent when intimidated with 'plead guilty and you get 5 years or try for innocence and we'll hit you with 50' will choose the 5 years guilty plea because they do not have the power of the state at their disposal to fight. This means that instead of justice being about truth finding it ends up being about conviction rates, which is gamifying the justice system in a way that is very detrimental to society. Couple it with such things as three strikes laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_compl... and a system that is punitive rather than corrective and you have a major problem. Plea bargaining could be put to good use but in practice it is used as a means of intimidation and to short-circuit the justice system.
inclemnet 12y ago
> Adding an alternative is not coercion. It's not simply the existence plea bargains that is coercion, I don't think anyone would argue that, and it's easy to find situations where plea bargains can be good things. But, this is not the point of the criticism - it is also easy to think of situations where plea bargains could be used to distort justice rather than to make it efficient. Wikipedia has a good discussion of this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargains#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargains#Controversy . You can disagree that these criticisms are a problem in practice, that is fine and something that could be discussed, but you must recognise that plea bargains could in principle be used in a coercive way, and that many people fear that this happens in practice.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  What I'm not understanding is the difference. What is the substantial difference of facing a possible 50 years for breaking some law, vs facing a possible 50 years for breaking some law (but we'll give you 10 if you plead guilty)? The penalty faced, the court case, none of that changes because you have a prosecutor that says "you face (max sentence) if you go to trial" - which is a factual statement, judges have great leeway in setting sentences between minimum and maximum within the guidelines. So again, where's the coercion? The fundamental dynamic of a person pleading their case in court, with the possibility of a lot of time in prison if they lose, has not changed due to the existence of the alternative. Aaron Swartz was in trouble the moment the system got ahold of him, not the moment the prosecutor said he could be facing the maximum sentence in prison.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    You are taking two steps at the time. A trial is supposed to determine your guilt and give you a fair shot at mounting a defense. Since hardly anybody can afford to go on a frontal collision course with the Federal government you'll see people pleading 'guilty' when in fact they are not. The few that take their chances with the justice process are then thrown the book at and then some in a strange kind of revenge for not accepting the plea bargain. Even if they win it will leave them bankrupt. From your words it is almost as if you think that there is no cost for the defendants associated with accepting the plea or the existence of the plea, but in real life there most definitely is. All of the resources of the system can be brought to bear on those few that have the temerity to refuse the plea.