4 ms·

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

by 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

by Afton 11y ago

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