7 ms·

If you're innocent, is there EVER a reason to plead guilty? And, the DA's was going to manage the $2M collateral? What a sham!

by aagha 11y ago

Afton 11y ago
Of course there is. If you think that there is a 10% chance you might go to prison for life (for some crime), and the DA offers you a six month sentence, with a significant chance to be served as house arrest, then it might make a lot of sense to take the plea. False convictions happen. So now it's just a question of taking the known cost now, or a gamble on a much higher cost after the trial.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  This gives the DA an incentive to try to go for more false convictions since it will be a bigger stick to hold over future defendants. If false convictions had low incidence then innocent people would go to trial more often. Very bad situation, this.
  - Afton 11y ago
    It gives the DA an incentive to apply any charges that might possibly stick because it increases the likelihood of a plea deal by shifting the perceived risk to the accused. This is absolutely a bad situation, but presumably the DAs aren't amoral monsters who are deliberately trying to falsely convict people. :)
    - makmanalp 11y ago
      This is exactly the problem though - everything about the concept of "applying whatever charges that may stick" sounds predatory. Being thrown charges until something sticks is akin to being interrogated until something / anything damning is found against you - an inquisition. It's not shifting perceived risk, it's shifting real risk. If you're not charged for something, you're probably (right? correct me if I'm wrong?) not going to get convicted for it. If you /are/ charged for something, there's a chance you're going to get convicted for it. Terrible things don't mostly happen because people are monsters, they happen because people are apathetic to others' problems and value their own convenience and gain above all else.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    You could also argue, the DA would avoid uncertain cases. That is the common wisdom in the legal community about federal prosecution. They only make a move when they are totally certain they can get a win. Can't speak to local DAs in bumfuck eygpt. Maybe they are trying to avoid losing by any means necessary.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > You could also argue, the DA would avoid uncertain cases. TFA seems to illustrate the opposite. The real effect is simply a much harsher one: If you're poor you're going to jail, guilty or not and if you're wealthy you can afford to defend.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        To the contrary. This isn't an uncertain case, and it proves the rule that prosecutors go after easy, sure cases. Here, you've got eight employees of a small bank admitting to originating false loans. The employees in question were highly placed: "The accused employees include Yiu Wah Wong, the bank’s chief credit officer, who reported directly to Jill Sung; and Wai Hung 'Raymond' Tam, the loan origination supervisor, who trained the bank’s loan officers and processors." This isn't a case where you have to connect a chain of events between a third-world branch of a megabank all the way to someone who matters. It's neat and self-contained, and easy for a jury to understand.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        I'm not sure we're reading the same article. The 'neat and self contained case that was easy for a jury to understand' fell apart completely. And the bank is (fortunately) wealthy enough to defend itself. That of course did not stop the prosecutor from going after the employees. Really. Bank discovers internal fraud, goes after the main perpetrator who then turns star witness for the prosecution. It's a giant mess with the prosecutors having considerable egg on their face.
        11y ago
thesteamboat 11y ago
Sadly, yes. Trials can be ruinously expensive even if you win. 97% of federal criminal prosecutions end in plea bargaining [0]. Prosecutors often make offers that are coercive. Consider the Aaron Swartz case [1]. After his death the prosecutor released a statement saying that they would have recommended to the judge 6 months in jail. While they were trying to secure a plea bargain they said he faced up to 35 years in jail and a $1 million fine. Quoted from the Forbes article: > If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years. > In this hypothetical scenario, those 10 years in prison would, practically speaking, have consisted of six months for his original crime (the sentence Ortiz actually thought he deserved) plus a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for exercising his constitutional right to a trial. [0]: http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpoints/2014-01-how-plea-bargains-are-making-jury-trials-obsolete http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpoints/2014-01-how-plea-ba... [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/01/17/aaron-swartz-and-the-corrupt-practice-of-plea-bargaining/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/01/17/aaron-swar...
- rhino369 11y ago
  Anyone who has ever dealt with federal criminal law would know that the 35-50 years was BS. There are federal sentencing guidelines, which are almost always used. It's a matrix and you can know pretty much what you face if you are found guilty. It's also not correct to label a plea deal as what the prosecution thought they deserved. They factor in the cost of trial and probability of success. It's like any negotiation.
  - thesteamboat 11y ago
    Most people have not dealt with federal criminal law. Yes, a good lawyer should be able to help interpret where things truly stand, but that does not absolve prosecutors acting in a coercive fashion to secure convictions. It's true that a plea deal is not what the prosecution `thought they deserved'. Too often, it's whatever they think that can get the defendant to agree to, and has little connection to justice. The particulars of the Swartz case were meant to be indicative of the larger problem, and he certainly had access to good legal counsel. Nevertheless, that 6 months quote comes from the prosecutors press release [0]: > The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law. Contrasted with her earlier press release [1]. > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. 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. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carmen-ortiz-releases-totally-bogus-statement-concerning-aaron-swartz-prosecution.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carme... [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice... (Link to archive as the page has since been taken down) Also bonus reading on the connection to mandatory sentencing laws exacerbating this process: [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-pr...
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Best article on the subject by former prosecutor and judge, Jed Rakoff: 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...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

If you're innocent, is there EVER a reason to plead guilty? And, the DA's was going to manage the $2M collateral? What a sham!

by aagha 11y ago

If you're innocent, is there EVER a reason to plead guilty? And, the DA's was going to manage the $2M collateral? What a sham!

Afton 11y ago

Of course there is. If you think that there is a 10% chance you might go to prison for life (for some crime), and the DA offers you a six month sentence, with a significant chance to be served as house arrest, then it might make a lot of sense to take the plea. False convictions happen. So now it's just a question of taking the known cost now, or a gamble on a much higher cost after the trial.

jacquesm 11y ago
This gives the DA an incentive to try to go for more false convictions since it will be a bigger stick to hold over future defendants. If false convictions had low incidence then innocent people would go to trial more often. Very bad situation, this.
- Afton 11y ago
  It gives the DA an incentive to apply any charges that might possibly stick because it increases the likelihood of a plea deal by shifting the perceived risk to the accused. This is absolutely a bad situation, but presumably the DAs aren't amoral monsters who are deliberately trying to falsely convict people. :)
  - makmanalp 11y ago
    This is exactly the problem though - everything about the concept of "applying whatever charges that may stick" sounds predatory. Being thrown charges until something sticks is akin to being interrogated until something / anything damning is found against you - an inquisition. It's not shifting perceived risk, it's shifting real risk. If you're not charged for something, you're probably (right? correct me if I'm wrong?) not going to get convicted for it. If you /are/ charged for something, there's a chance you're going to get convicted for it. Terrible things don't mostly happen because people are monsters, they happen because people are apathetic to others' problems and value their own convenience and gain above all else.
- rhino369 11y ago
  You could also argue, the DA would avoid uncertain cases. That is the common wisdom in the legal community about federal prosecution. They only make a move when they are totally certain they can get a win. Can't speak to local DAs in bumfuck eygpt. Maybe they are trying to avoid losing by any means necessary.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > You could also argue, the DA would avoid uncertain cases. TFA seems to illustrate the opposite. The real effect is simply a much harsher one: If you're poor you're going to jail, guilty or not and if you're wealthy you can afford to defend.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      To the contrary. This isn't an uncertain case, and it proves the rule that prosecutors go after easy, sure cases. Here, you've got eight employees of a small bank admitting to originating false loans. The employees in question were highly placed: "The accused employees include Yiu Wah Wong, the bank’s chief credit officer, who reported directly to Jill Sung; and Wai Hung 'Raymond' Tam, the loan origination supervisor, who trained the bank’s loan officers and processors." This isn't a case where you have to connect a chain of events between a third-world branch of a megabank all the way to someone who matters. It's neat and self-contained, and easy for a jury to understand.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        I'm not sure we're reading the same article. The 'neat and self contained case that was easy for a jury to understand' fell apart completely. And the bank is (fortunately) wealthy enough to defend itself. That of course did not stop the prosecutor from going after the employees. Really. Bank discovers internal fraud, goes after the main perpetrator who then turns star witness for the prosecution. It's a giant mess with the prosecutors having considerable egg on their face.
        11y ago

thesteamboat 11y ago

Sadly, yes. Trials can be ruinously expensive even if you win. 97% of federal criminal prosecutions end in plea bargaining [0]. Prosecutors often make offers that are coercive. Consider the Aaron Swartz case [1]. After his death the prosecutor released a statement saying that they would have recommended to the judge 6 months in jail. While they were trying to secure a plea bargain they said he faced up to 35 years in jail and a $1 million fine. Quoted from the Forbes article: > If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years. > In this hypothetical scenario, those 10 years in prison would, practically speaking, have consisted of six months for his original crime (the sentence Ortiz actually thought he deserved) plus a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for exercising his constitutional right to a trial. [0]: http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpoints/2014-01-how-plea-bargains-are-making-jury-trials-obsolete http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpoints/2014-01-how-plea-ba... [1]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/01/17/aaron-swartz-and-the-corrupt-practice-of-plea-bargaining/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/01/17/aaron-swar...

rhino369 11y ago
Anyone who has ever dealt with federal criminal law would know that the 35-50 years was BS. There are federal sentencing guidelines, which are almost always used. It's a matrix and you can know pretty much what you face if you are found guilty. It's also not correct to label a plea deal as what the prosecution thought they deserved. They factor in the cost of trial and probability of success. It's like any negotiation.
- thesteamboat 11y ago
  Most people have not dealt with federal criminal law. Yes, a good lawyer should be able to help interpret where things truly stand, but that does not absolve prosecutors acting in a coercive fashion to secure convictions. It's true that a plea deal is not what the prosecution `thought they deserved'. Too often, it's whatever they think that can get the defendant to agree to, and has little connection to justice. The particulars of the Swartz case were meant to be indicative of the larger problem, and he certainly had access to good legal counsel. Nevertheless, that 6 months quote comes from the prosecutors press release [0]: > The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law. Contrasted with her earlier press release [1]. > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. 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. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carmen-ortiz-releases-totally-bogus-statement-concerning-aaron-swartz-prosecution.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/02090421710/carme... [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html http://web.archive.org/web/20140625220211/http://www.justice... (Link to archive as the page has since been taken down) Also bonus reading on the connection to mandatory sentencing laws exacerbating this process: [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-pr...

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Best article on the subject by former prosecutor and judge, Jed Rakoff: 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...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]