5 ms·

What about truth? It is assumed that prosecution see you as guilty. But what if they got the wrong person? It's not like it never happened. Besides, what is th

What about truth? It is assumed that prosecution see you as guilty. But what if they got the wrong person? It's not like it never happened. Besides, what is the downside for prosecution (as individual) for a wrongful convictions?

tptacek 12y ago
There is inadequate downside for prosecutors making bad-faith or risky cases. But the question I posed was practical, not moral: in the absence of plea deals, there is no disincentive for the guilty accused to grind the system to a halt with pointless litigation. The people who would pay the steepest price for that wouldn't be the citizenry at large, but rather the innocent accused.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Whatever happened to rather that 10 guilty men walk free rather than that one man be jailed innocent? The innocent accused are paying the steepest price today, they end up pleading guilty, lose their livelihood, rights, and lots more. If the system would grind to a halt it would grind to a halt for everybody, not just for the guilty. And maybe that would allow for a better system rather than one where might makes right and the amount of money you can muster for your defense is the biggest factor in determining the outcome.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    No, it does not logically follow that because the innocent accused face an unjust burden today, stupid decisions we make going forward couldn't make their burden even worse. There was a New Yorker story about a young defendant spending years in Rikers waiting for a trial that saw continuance after continuance; that's what happens today, in a system that relies heavily on plea deals to clear caseloads.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      I can't make heads or tails of your position. The fact that the justice system is overloaded has no bearing on the plea bargain situation since it is not used to lighten the load on the justice system but rather to concentrate more power on the few remaining cases. You make it seem as if the plea bargaining system is used as an efficiency gain where those that 'know they're guilty' are going to plead guilty and all those that know they are not are going to have their day in court. If that were the case I would not have a problem with it, alas it is very far from the truth.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Sure you can. My position is very straightforward. The innocent accused already wait too long for their day in court because of an overburdened court system. They would wait vastly longer --- serving, as is the routine in places like China, the majority of their purported sentence in pre-trial detention --- if the courts were forced to pointlessly spend weeks on criminal cases in which neither party believes the accused has any chance of prevailing. Increase burden on court system: decrease resources allocated to the innocent accused.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        You are somewhat missing the point: the innocent accused are quite frequently accepting the plea, even though they are innocent. So they serve a sentence they shouldn't be serving and they end up being branded convicts for life. Have a read: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
        tptacek 12y ago
        No, you've read my comment, made an orthogonal point, and then suggested that I don't understand that point. I do understand it; it's simply orthogonal to mine. You're also very happy to mis-frame my point, repeatedly suggesting that I believe there's no meaningful injustice in the status quo. That is not what I believe. I've been pretty clear about the fact that there is a significant problem that urgently needs correction. It's just not exactly the problem you care about, and so you caricature my points to try to win the argument. Once again: regardless of how often the innocent accept bogus plea agreements, those innocent who choose to fight their cases are greatly harmed by a system that eliminates plea bargains.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    > Whatever happened to rather that 10 guilty men walk free rather than that one man be jailed innocent? That has always been bullshit, the way you and most of the Internet are misusing this quotation. Why 10 to 1? Why not 1 to 1 or 1e100000 to 1? This ratio is purely arbitrary. Obviously, if you really followed through with the gist of your argument, we should never convict anyone, because better to let everyone go than miss the one injustice in a thousand years. Unless you can make a case for a specific ratio, 10 to 1 has no special meaning. The quotation only argues that the balance should be biased towards aquittal. Nothing more.

tptacek 12y ago

There is inadequate downside for prosecutors making bad-faith or risky cases. But the question I posed was practical, not moral: in the absence of plea deals, there is no disincentive for the guilty accused to grind the system to a halt with pointless litigation. The people who would pay the steepest price for that wouldn't be the citizenry at large, but rather the innocent accused.

jacquesm 12y ago
Whatever happened to rather that 10 guilty men walk free rather than that one man be jailed innocent? The innocent accused are paying the steepest price today, they end up pleading guilty, lose their livelihood, rights, and lots more. If the system would grind to a halt it would grind to a halt for everybody, not just for the guilty. And maybe that would allow for a better system rather than one where might makes right and the amount of money you can muster for your defense is the biggest factor in determining the outcome.
- tptacek 12y ago
  No, it does not logically follow that because the innocent accused face an unjust burden today, stupid decisions we make going forward couldn't make their burden even worse. There was a New Yorker story about a young defendant spending years in Rikers waiting for a trial that saw continuance after continuance; that's what happens today, in a system that relies heavily on plea deals to clear caseloads.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    I can't make heads or tails of your position. The fact that the justice system is overloaded has no bearing on the plea bargain situation since it is not used to lighten the load on the justice system but rather to concentrate more power on the few remaining cases. You make it seem as if the plea bargaining system is used as an efficiency gain where those that 'know they're guilty' are going to plead guilty and all those that know they are not are going to have their day in court. If that were the case I would not have a problem with it, alas it is very far from the truth.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Sure you can. My position is very straightforward. The innocent accused already wait too long for their day in court because of an overburdened court system. They would wait vastly longer --- serving, as is the routine in places like China, the majority of their purported sentence in pre-trial detention --- if the courts were forced to pointlessly spend weeks on criminal cases in which neither party believes the accused has any chance of prevailing. Increase burden on court system: decrease resources allocated to the innocent accused.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        You are somewhat missing the point: the innocent accused are quite frequently accepting the plea, even though they are innocent. So they serve a sentence they shouldn't be serving and they end up being branded convicts for life. Have a read: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
        tptacek 12y ago
        No, you've read my comment, made an orthogonal point, and then suggested that I don't understand that point. I do understand it; it's simply orthogonal to mine. You're also very happy to mis-frame my point, repeatedly suggesting that I believe there's no meaningful injustice in the status quo. That is not what I believe. I've been pretty clear about the fact that there is a significant problem that urgently needs correction. It's just not exactly the problem you care about, and so you caricature my points to try to win the argument. Once again: regardless of how often the innocent accept bogus plea agreements, those innocent who choose to fight their cases are greatly harmed by a system that eliminates plea bargains.
- Tomte 12y ago
  > Whatever happened to rather that 10 guilty men walk free rather than that one man be jailed innocent? That has always been bullshit, the way you and most of the Internet are misusing this quotation. Why 10 to 1? Why not 1 to 1 or 1e100000 to 1? This ratio is purely arbitrary. Obviously, if you really followed through with the gist of your argument, we should never convict anyone, because better to let everyone go than miss the one injustice in a thousand years. Unless you can make a case for a specific ratio, 10 to 1 has no special meaning. The quotation only argues that the balance should be biased towards aquittal. Nothing more.