Forums → WEPR → Justice System - Plea bargains

I pretty much agree with everything you said. Yes, the American justice system is pretty f'd up and perverted.

Case and point...
Several months ago, my mom was issued official criminal court summons and later "convicted" of a misdemeanor. What was this horrible offense against America that she committed? Going 50 in a 45 zone.
And yeah,
If you are ever charged with a crime against a police officer or a government employee, expect to spend some long hard time in max rape prison whether or not you did anything wrong. Also in criminal court, you don't get convicted based upon evidence, the jury rules based upon their stupid little emotions and whether or not they like you personally. There's only two sides in any case: the prosecution who thinks your Satan's offspring and want to cut your head of and use it like a soccer ball, and then there's the defense that is lame and never wins because their explanations for what really happens are so stupid, and then there's the judge who wears the idiotic black robe to hide what he's doing with his hand to pass the time.

I think this is just watering down the legal system unfairly into stereotypes.

Plea bargains aren't always bad. They can be used for a lot of good. Fundamentally the question is just whether judicial efficiency comes at the cost of arriving at a fair and just outcome. The base fact is that there are too few public prosecutors, judges to deal with the amount f crime we see, and it isn't easy to train new ones at a fast rate.

We should not see public prosecutors as simply an advocate of the state in the sense that the prosecutor has to seek conviction at any cost. They serve other purposes as well, such as filtering out only the most grave and debatable crimes for judges to decide. Prosecutors bring charges when they think there’s a good chance of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, if not, they just leave the case at that. Most of the time they will be impartial, fair and truthful as a public executive.

The judicial process is far from what they portray in the movies; the most common scene would be between two experienced legal professionals negotiating over charges, rather than two angry table banging persons having a go at each other in court. Very few cases would warrant the latter. Usually the public prosecutor and lawyer are both extremely experienced, and can tell from first glance what the outcome of the trial will be like since the cases will start to all look the same. So why bother with a trial?

The majority of crimes are minor and trivial. Offences like drunk driving, shoplifting, etc. Entering a plea bargain in these cases makes far more sense than trying to proceed to trial and getting a much more severe sentence. There are also cases mired in red tape that will drag for months whilst a person is in custody. Pleading guilty and getting a far lighter sentence will be preferable then. Plea bargains have done more good than harm in this regard.

If the evidence is weaker and not watertight, prosecutors will go for lesser charges. This is infinitely better than going to trial, and potentially leading to a hung jury, and resource wasting, particularly so in minor offences. Alternatively, if the shoe is on the other foot and the evidence is strongly against the offender, than it can make much more sense to go with a plea bargain as well.

You will still get to see the judge even if you decide to go with a plea bargain. The public prosecutor has no powers of sentencing, and it's still up to the judge who will hear the evidence before sentencing. Importantly, there will also be a preliminary hearing where the judges screen cases and weed out weak cases which helps the defendant. So it's not as if a person is simply taken from the prosecutor's office after some devious wheeling and dealing between him and your sneaky, money grabbing defence counsel and thrown straight into jail.

Imagine having a full blow by blow trial for every simple offence of drunk driving, trespass, or shoplifting. That would be awfully inefficient and a waste of everyone's time. We must recall again that the vast majority of cases are not rape or murder or kidnapping or crimes of that ilk.
---------
Sportshark case is just a simple offence of speed driving. There's nothing horribly biased or legally unfair about that. A camera or policeman catches you above the speed limit, and gives you a ticket. That's just about it. It would be a slippery slope to close one eye on the part of the policeman when a person goes over the limit by 5 miles, compared to 50.

There's only two sides in any case

No, real cases which are not straightforward, are much more complex than that.

Should also add that criminal law is just one part, albeit the most visible, of the legal system. To say the system is unjust simply based on one aspect, were we even to accept that the criminal law aspect is unjust, is not...doing it any justice.

Plea bargains aren't always bad. They can be used for a lot of good. Fundamentally the question is just whether judicial efficiency comes at the cost of arriving at a fair and just outcome. The base fact is that there are too few public prosecutors, judges to deal with the amount of crime we see, and it isn't easy to train new ones at a fast rate.

While indeed the logic is sound and the amount of judges and prosecutors is truly low compared to the amount of crime, there is a certain concern that there is also no focus given on the training of said court officials. The worrying question that is brought up is whether the state is at least trying to rectify things by focusing, as much as normally possible, on the increase of prosecutors and Judges capable of dealing with a trial.

We should not see public prosecutors as simply an advocate of the state in the sense that the prosecutor has to seek conviction at any cost. They serve other purposes as well, such as filtering out only the most grave and debatable crimes for judges to decide. Prosecutors bring charges when they think there’s a good chance of proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, if not, they just leave the case at that. Most of the time they will be impartial, fair and truthful as a public executive.

When you say "leave the case at that." what do you mean? Sorry, the meaning escaped me. While I understand what you are saying and, at least from my side, there's hardly any doubt that such filtering is useful in the current judicial system, I wonder what happens in the case there's not enough evidence to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

If the evidence is weaker and not watertight, prosecutors will go for lesser charges. This is infinitely better than going to trial, and potentially leading to a hung jury, and resource wasting, particularly so in minor offences. Alternatively, if the shoe is on the other foot and the evidence is strongly against the offender, than it can make much more sense to go with a plea bargain as well.

(Does that answer my question above? I suppose it does, but I am going to leave it at that for now). Now I may be resorting to survivorship bias (may be because I don't know of any actual statistics, so if I am, please correct me. It was accidental) but what about the 337 individuals who were proven innocent after serving a combined 4606 years? You see, the worry is the same: whether or not the plea bargains can, aside from their actual usefulness, harm the effective administration of justice. All these 337 individuals were exonerated since 1989 and considering how long things proceed in terms of criminal justice, it is not that long of a timeframe.

Imagine having a full blow by blow trial for every simple offence of drunk driving, trespass, or shoplifting. That would be awfully inefficient and a waste of everyone's time. We must recall again that the vast majority of cases are not rape or murder or kidnapping or crimes of that ilk.

Again, the real concern is whether the plea bargains are also used for cases of such crimes and how efficient they are in administrating justice. If a defendant is accused of such a crime (again, talking about crimes and charges of that magnitude), can a plea bargain be considered unfair?

Sportshark case is just a simple offence of speed driving. There's nothing horribly biased or legally unfair about that. A camera or policeman catches you above the speed limit, and gives you a ticket. That's just about it. It would be a slippery slope to close one eye on the part of the policeman when a person goes over the limit by 5 miles, compared to 50.

Well I think he was talking about the "convicted" part. Formal language and a sense of austerity is natural in the court though, so the court summons could not be different in form, or severity I think.

Should also add that criminal law is just one part, albeit the most visible, of the legal system. To say the system is unjust simply based on one aspect, were we even to accept that the criminal law aspect is unjust, is not...doing it any justice.

And the primary function too I think. While it certainly has many other aspects, isn't it built up around that part? (I honsetly don't know. If not, please correct me).

Yes for sure, I would prefer to have more judges and prosecutors around. But it's really hard to train one, since they have to work as lawyers for a few years first. Many lawyers will want to continue sticking to that job and not move onto more hostile, intense pastures of judgeship. And after that, a judge will still have to work his way up the levels of court, and won't be able to hear all types of cases from the beginning.

It's very common to find cases that you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt. It all depends on the fact of the case, and it would be impossible to generalise. But for minor cases like shoplifting, then a plea bargain is a sensible route to go onto. Murder/rape/kidnap/outrage of modesty/grand larceny or cases of that level will still definitely go through a trial process. As to your question on reasonable doubt, if you can't prove during a trial that the defendant committed the act beyond reasonable doubt, then he gets an acquittal. But it is extremely tedious to go through the entire process with a jury for minor crimes, and would be unduly taxing on the defendant of such a crime mentally and financially. Hence a plea bargain strikes a middle ground.

The system is not foolproof, and that's why projects like IP are necessary to combat any falling through the crack cases. A plea bargain can definitely be unfair. It is a worry, but judges and prosecutors are only human. They are often hampered by what they have, the law, and precedent cases. As cold as it sounds, 337 people is a drop in the ocean. It's all a delicate balancing act, efficiency clashes with a slow but certainly just system. Incidentally I'm going to embark on the IP myself, so perhaps my viewpoint will change and perhaps I can share more about it.

-----

The legal system hears more civil cases than criminal cases. There isn't a primary function of courts in terms of the type of case, but I can say for sure there are less criminal cases than non-criminal cases. Family cases, small claims cases, contract, tort, these occur far far more often.

[...] what about the 337 individuals who were proven innocent after serving a combined 4606 years? You see, the worry is the same: whether or not the plea bargains can, aside from their actual usefulness, harm the effective administration of justice.

Yes for sure, I would prefer to have more judges and prosecutors around. But it's really hard to train one, since they have to work as lawyers for a few years first. Many lawyers will want to continue sticking to that job and not move onto more hostile, intense pastures of judgeship. And after that, a judge will still have to work his way up the levels of court, and won't be able to hear all types of cases from the beginning.

So, as is understandable, it takes a lot of work and training for one lawyer to rise as a prosecutor or a judge. But my reference to the State and the attention it gives to the matter can be more simply put as whether the incentives provided are sufficient to encourage lawyers to pursue that career.

As to your question on reasonable doubt, if you can't prove during a trial that the defendant committed the act beyond reasonable doubt, then he gets an acquittal.

You mentioned before that the prosecutors bring in cases that they think have a reasonable chance of being proven beyond reasonable doubt. So I assume prosecutors often weigh these chances when facing a case before deciding to go through the trial process or not? And is the plea bargain what is offered in case the prosecutor decides that the case has not many chances to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court?

What possible relevance could the combined total have if not simply for padding the numbers?

1) For easier referencing in the article and 2) the numbers hold some significance too.

According to the article cited, only 31 of them had gone with plea bargains.

which slightly less than 10% of them but the whole matters too because the questions posed refer to multiple aspects of the Judicial system, not just the plea pargains. To put it simply, using plea bargains to avoid trials, while the trials themselves are (or at least considered by the source) the pinnacles of the system's austerity may be forcing people into an early and unjust conviction. The exoneration of all the 337 individuals, minus the 31 who accepted a plea deal reminds us that all these people were found guilty of crimes they didn't commit in trials. Flaws of the system, as, like nicho pointed out, the system is not fool-proof. But those flaws raise the question whether there is a certain prejudice surrounding that procedure, which in turn is affected by the plea deals. Therefore, it cannot be just about plea deals. At least, that was my thinking at the time I posted this...

I think even if you increase the incentives financially perhaps, the job would still have less appeal than a cushy job at firms or in house lawyers. The work load is immense, the decisions will test the judge's moral compass on a daily basis, and the requirements needed are high. Exploring other areas to solve the issue would seem simpler, and the IP is growing in importance for instance.

Yes, the prosecutors do have to weigh the chances of a case's outcomes before a trial. The prosecutors themselves will often work with the investigating officers, and he will also decide the charges that the defendant will face. His role is very essential and is rather a bit more than just being the opposing attorney.

Having difficulty with proving beyond reasonable doubt is one reason why plea bargains may be offered. Other reasons would be that a crime is more trivial. Or if the person is a first time offender with a clean record. Or that they simply want to save time and resources (usually tied in with the reason of a minor crime). In particular, if there is a long queue of cases in front of yours, then a plea bargain might seem sensible.

That is what I know thus far, I may be wrong on the details here and there.