Quote (krackprophet @ Jul 29 2019 06:14pm)
Twisted worldview that the US prison system is problematic
Why are you posting the most basic definitions for real? Nobody is misunderstanding anything. Plea bargaining is a massive problem in the United States.
Step one: Post basic definitions I guess. So now we have defined jail, prison, plea bargain.
Step two: I'll say why I think plea bargaining sucks etc:
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1843&context=mulrQuote
"Plea bargaining" is that bushel basket of practices
whereby a prosecutor agrees to:
- charge a crime or crimes less seriously than the facts
warrant, and/or - reduce a charge or charges already issued, and/or
- dismiss a charge or charges already issued, and/or
- not issue additional charges, and/or
- make a sentence recommendation all in return for a
guilty or a no contest plea. It includes what has variously
been described as "charge bargaining" and "sentence bargaining" as well as "plea bargaining." Importantly, however,
whatever form the leniency takes, the leniency is payment to a
defendant to induce him or her not to go to trial. The guilty
or no-contest plea is the quidpro quo for the concession; there
is no other reason.
It goes on to show how plea bargaining weakens deterrence of criminal sentences to people who commit crimes, it tends to exhort guilty pleas, and it is advantageous for the defendant and prevents judges from hearing the details of the crimes or give those who are victims of crime their day in court.
https://connectusfund.org/15-serious-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-plea-bargainingAdvantages are procedural and the disadvantages is that it makes innocent people do sentences and pay fines:
Quote
List of Advantages of Plea Bargaining
1. It helps deal with case loads.
In plea bargaining, the state and the court are aided in dealing with case loads. Also, the process decreases the prosecutors’ work load by letting them prepare for more serious cases by leaving effortless and petty charges in order to settle through.
2. It makes trial scheduling uncongested.
For the judge, the key benefit of accepting a plea bargain agreement is that he can alleviate the need to schedule and hold the trial on a docket that is already overcrowded. Judges are also aware of overcrowding in jails, so they might be receptive to process out offenders who are unlikely to do much jail time anyway. This means cases will be closed much quicker, which is good for the society as the method de-clogs court systems for more serious cases.
3. It hastens the process of trials.
Plea bargains are a significant factor in restructuring offenders by letting them agree to the blame for their trial and by letting them voluntarily submit before the law—without having expensive and time-consuming trials.
4. It eliminates a case’s uncertainty.
From the criminal defense’s perspective, the most useful benefit of this type of agreement is its ability to remove the uncertainty of a trial. It helps defendants with making sure they will not receive more serious charges for the criminal acts filed against them.
5. It brings great possibility to find the accused guilty.
When it does happen that the prosecution is feeble or that the court wants proper witnesses or evidence, and the outcome is likely acquittal, it is possible that the prosecuting party will still find the accused guilty.
6. It prevents a case from getting worse.
When a charged individual takes a plea bargain, he will not have to go through trial. This means that some crimes, which may have been committed, and any damning evidence are not going to be discovered.
7. It does not allow maximum sentence.
One of the biggest reasons why many people opt for plea bargaining is the fact that they cannot receive maximum sentences for their crimes.
8. It may allow for aiding larger cases.
In a plea bargaining agreement, prosecutors will often roll other conditions for the defendants to testify against a co-defendant, which might help solve larger cases in a prosecution.
9. It lets the justice system breathe.
If all criminal cases should make it to a trial by jury, then our justice systems would not be able to sustain themselves. Courts will probably be backed up by months or even years.
List of Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining
1. It allows presentation of the accused with unconscionable pressure.
In a plea bargaining agreement, the prosecution can present the accused with unconscionable pressure. And even though the process is controlled, there is still a chance of it being coerced.
2. It can lead to poor case preparation and investigations.
Some judges and attorneys argue that plea bargaining has led to attorneys not taking the time to properly prepare their cases and poor police investigations. They believe that, rather than pursuing justice, the parties would rely on making a deal, where the details of what happened and their legal consequences will become less important.
3. It might be biased to the prosecution party.
Plea bargaining might allow prosecutors to take full advantage of accepting criminal acts in the weakest trials. The more beneficial will be a guilty claim for the prosecution is if the trial ends in acquittal.
4. It might charge innocent people guilty.
Even if you are innocent, but agreed to a guilty plea, you still have to pay a fine or be imprisoned for a crime you did not commit. Not only this, but you will also have a criminal record that cannot be erased.
5. It is unconstitutional.
It is argued that plea bargaining is unconstitutional, as it takes away the defense’s constitutional right to a trial by jury. If the defendant is pressured or coerced into such an agreement, then this argument may have a considerable weight. But if the defendant, at all times in the criminal case, retains his right to a trial by jury without pressure to make an agreement, then the court finds that this procedure remains constitutional.
6. It can make the justice system suffer.
Since both the defense and prosecution parties depend on their power to negotiate a deal, instead of winning a trial, the justice system might suffer.
For my twisted value system, saving bureaucrats time and helping ensure a smooth work day is less important than honoring the Constitution and not coercing innocent people into paying fines or doing sentences that are unnecessary. It is abhorrent to wish people to be in cages.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/11/plea-bargaining-a-necessary-evil/Even in this article, with argues for plea bargaining as a necessary evil, it has this to say, which everybody who has studied this problem knows:
Quote
Unfortunately, according to Clark Neily, many plea bargains are deeply unfair — which is why innocent people routinely plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. He cited three factors that make the plea-bargaining process so coercive: (1) pretrial detention, which is often hellish (think of Rikers Island), and which defendants will do practically anything to escape; (2) woefully inadequate and/or under-resourced defense counsel (and/or conflicted defense counsel, to the extent that they have to maintain good relations with prosecutors for future cases); and (3) the “trial penalty,” which is the (often vast) difference between your sentence if you plead and your sentence if you dare to go to trial.
Professor Carissa Hessick echoed many of Neily’s concerns. On the issue of pretrial detention, she quoted one public defender who told her that he has never been able to convince a client to reject a plea deal if the deal allowed for immediate release. Speaking more broadly, the idea of plea bargaining rests upon concepts of negotiation and contract that assume rational actors — but some (perhaps many) defendants act irrationally, calling into question the legitimacy of the model.
Notwithstanding her criticisms of plea bargaining, Professor Hessick parted ways with Clark Neily on what is to be done. “Plea bargaining is bad,” she noted, “but other things are also very bad.” The practice simply can’t be abolished.
Given its importance to the criminal justice system, plea bargaining isn’t going away anytime soon. But it can and should be reformed, according to Judge Stephanos Bibas (3d Cir.).
Quote
The strongest critic of plea bargaining on the panel was Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, who made the constitutional case against plea bargaining. He quoted the language of Article III, Section 2 — “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury” — and pointed out that the Bill of Rights has more words about jury trial than any other topic.
When it comes to rights of the individual vs rights of the state I am very libertarian which might seem like a twisted worldview to some people. You have to murder someone to be held until trial without bail, and you only wait if you're poor. I suppose in the case if plea bargaining, where the state coerces you into surrendering rights explicit in the constitution to open the cage... there is no other case where individuals can surrender other explicit rights for legal advantage....its kind of bullshit. You cannot sell your rights except in this instance.
You value procedure and I value human life. I just see this as a values difference.
This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 29 2019 06:55pm