10 ms·

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 th

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...
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>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. This is really the core of it. You are punished for daring to exercise your right to a trial. The only solution for this that I've been able to see is to end plea bargains. This, combined with a right to speedy trial, will result in prosecutors only being able to go after a small fraction of the cases they currently pursue. Which means less focus on victim less crimes (assuming the prosecutors have any morals left which is admittingly a dubious assumption).
- shasta 11y ago
  Why is it so terrible to be punished for exercising your right to trial? Phrased another way, why not offer an incentive for avoiding an expensive trial? The outrageous thing is the 20:1 ratio of punishment risked at trial to plea punishment. Offhand, it seems like there should be a cap of 2:1 or thereabouts on this ratio.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    How about for those factually innocent of the charges they face? There should not be a perverse incentive to "plead guilty (to something you did not do), or risk (even with your cap) twice the sentence if you exercise your rights. In this case, it is bad enough to be sentenced to _x_ for a crime you did not commit, and insult to injury to be sentenced to _2x_, let alone _20x_ for having the gall and audacity to demand a trial. Lesser, but still valid issues may remain when you are indeed guilty, but feel that plea bargaining or sentencing recommendations are out of proportion, unrealistic or whatever. "Hey, contest it. If you lose, you suffer. If you win you suffer, 'less'." Meanwhile the burden of "expensive" trials, lets be honest, falls largely on the accused, not the state, who has (for all intents and purposes) and unlimited budget (especially at the federal level) - while not strictly accurate, I realize, if there's enough determination, you will suffer that - how often does the government dismiss cases because they are "too expensive to prosecute"? Compare and contrast to the myriad of people who have no option but public defenders.
vanessa98 11y ago
Federal prosecutors also cherrypick slam dunk cases

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...

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>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. This is really the core of it. You are punished for daring to exercise your right to a trial. The only solution for this that I've been able to see is to end plea bargains. This, combined with a right to speedy trial, will result in prosecutors only being able to go after a small fraction of the cases they currently pursue. Which means less focus on victim less crimes (assuming the prosecutors have any morals left which is admittingly a dubious assumption).

shasta 11y ago
Why is it so terrible to be punished for exercising your right to trial? Phrased another way, why not offer an incentive for avoiding an expensive trial? The outrageous thing is the 20:1 ratio of punishment risked at trial to plea punishment. Offhand, it seems like there should be a cap of 2:1 or thereabouts on this ratio.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  How about for those factually innocent of the charges they face? There should not be a perverse incentive to "plead guilty (to something you did not do), or risk (even with your cap) twice the sentence if you exercise your rights. In this case, it is bad enough to be sentenced to _x_ for a crime you did not commit, and insult to injury to be sentenced to _2x_, let alone _20x_ for having the gall and audacity to demand a trial. Lesser, but still valid issues may remain when you are indeed guilty, but feel that plea bargaining or sentencing recommendations are out of proportion, unrealistic or whatever. "Hey, contest it. If you lose, you suffer. If you win you suffer, 'less'." Meanwhile the burden of "expensive" trials, lets be honest, falls largely on the accused, not the state, who has (for all intents and purposes) and unlimited budget (especially at the federal level) - while not strictly accurate, I realize, if there's enough determination, you will suffer that - how often does the government dismiss cases because they are "too expensive to prosecute"? Compare and contrast to the myriad of people who have no option but public defenders.

vanessa98 11y ago

Federal prosecutors also cherrypick slam dunk cases