Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well one big problem with identifying the truly bad guys . . . is plea bargaining. It skews the records badly. And from the other end, a cold reality is that folks who are actually innocent will in fact plead guilty to things they didn't do. Particularly poorer folks at the mercy of disinterested public defenders or stupidly representing themselves. This is not an occasional thing, it happens a LOT. When that Public Defender tells them they could get two years in Jail if they are found guilty, or they can pay a 400 dollar fine and take an anger management class . . .they'll often take the smaller hit just to avoid the possibility of a crap verdict because that disinterested (and often incompetent) public defender couldn't or wouldn't do their job.
The man who represents himself may have a fool for a client, but sadly, the man who has a public defender as his advocate often has a fool for a lawyer.
Plea bargaining has no place in an efficient legal system. Of course you can't just eliminate plea bargaining and leave the the rest of the existing system in place. The reason we need it in the present inefficient system is because of the arbitrary punishments in the first place.
I'd bet five bucks some, maybe even all, of the previous charges on the guy in this very topic were pled down. This is exactly why identifying the truly dangerous sleazeballs are so difficult to weed out.
Plea bargaining has no place in an efficient legal system. Of course you can't just eliminate plea bargaining and leave the the rest of the existing system in place. The reason we need it in the present inefficient system is because of the arbitrary punishments in the first place.
I'd bet five bucks some, maybe even all, of the previous charges on the guy in this very topic were pled down. This is exactly why identifying the truly dangerous sleazeballs are so difficult to weed out.
You've made a number of good points.
All of this/reform of the legal system is 'beyond' me. Can there be any improvement --I just don't know.
'Public records detail a criminal life that started when he was 14. But there are references to a juvenile court history, which is not public record, so Wise may have been accused of other crimes.
Even at that young age, police say,Wise was bold.'
Somehow I imagine education and mental health/social services would be involved. Very complicated, imo.
. It's literally impossible to try every case to a jury and seek the statutory penalty.
However, that doesn't mean being soft on crime or letting guilty people off the hook. Any of us who've watched Law & Order realize that many times a plea bargain results in in a stiff sentence with guaranteed time to serve.
I wanted to expand a bit on these parts of the post too Arjay.
While "in a snapshot in time" it would appear impossible to try every case, it isn't necessarily that way. "Pleas" can still take place, my objection is when charges for what actually took place are watered down. Defense and Prosecution would still be welcome to attempt stipulation of sentencing, if the Judge will sign off on it. But it needs to be done for the actual charge relevant to the crime that actually took place.
I watch Law and Order a lot, like the show, but it certainly isn't representative of the day to day realities in most courtrooms. The hard nosed Prosecutors in L.A.O. law are few and far between. The reality is that unless a case is getting a lot of press, both sides of the issue try to hammer out something that is easiest for them personally, that the Judge will hopefully buy into.
Keep in mind that even on L&O, many of the episodes incorporate the problem of plea deals into their plot lines. Some bad guy commits a heinous murder. McCoy then mentions the 8 previous old ladies the guy previously violently mugged that didn't actually die of their injuries, being reduced to "simple assaults." So the scum "fell through the cracks" of the judicial system.
He didn't fall through the cracks . . . . . he walked by the hand of a convoluted and wildly inefficient justice system right through those cracks.
Plea bargaining has no place in an efficient legal system.
I have to disagree. There are good plea bargains and bad plea bargains. I'm opposed to the ones that let people off too light, but I'm in favor of the pleas bargains that achieve substantial justice.
Consider this. If you eliminate plea bargaining, then there is only one option -- namely, the prosecutor seeks the maximum statutory sentence in every case. If that's the situation, every defendant will insist on a full jury trial, since he couldn't possibly come out worse. Why not force the prosecutor to trial and insist on strict proof of every element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt? You've got nothing to lose and you might even walk away.
To make a system work without plea negotiation, you'd have to hire a zillion new prosecutors, investigators, judges, and support personnel and build a bunch of new courthouses. What would you do with all the defendants while they're awaiting trial? They're innocent until proven guilty, so will they remain at large?
Plea bargains put a downside into the system, and force the defendant to consider how he might come out if he loses. In fact, they are sometimes criticized for pressuring innocent people to accept prison time simply because they don't have the resources to fight the charges.
I have to disagree. There are good plea bargains and bad plea bargains. I'm opposed to the ones that let people off too light, but I'm in favor of the pleas bargains that achieve substantial justice.
Actually, that first sentence after your disagreement is the fly in the ointment of your position. Your position is essentially reliant on "A perfect World" where everyone in the judicial system has common sense. Problem is, it's an imperfect world, where neither 'good guys' nor the 'bad guys' possess very much of it. You say you're oppsed to the ones where folks get off to light, but for the ones where they don't. Well . . .how do you control that? They clearly can't with the present system.
And the cold r3eality is that the VAST majority of plea bargains are of "the bad type" where guilty folks get off easier. Now as for the need to hire gazillions more judicial support people . . . not really. For one thing, without plea agreements, the sleazeballs will be spending WAY more time in jail, and won't be tying up the Judicial system 4 times a year, year in and year out. Eliminate "the revolving door" and that frees up a LOT of time in front of the Judges bench.
As for without pleas, the prosecutors always wanting the maximum sentence, well, that won't happen. Prosecutors like to win. Cases they don't feel are strong enough, they would not be real keen on trying to get the maximum sentence. Like I've already said, I have no problem with Prosecutors and Defense attorneys negotiating stipulated sentences subject to judicial approval by a Judge. But reducing charges needs to be reined in.
Our judicial system, at it's roots, is inherently fair. The problem has been things being added and subtracted for mere expediency . . .like pleaing serious charges down to petty and minor crimes. Expediency should never trump actual justice, and we've swayed enough from the basic roots of our system of Justice that it's hurting this country . . .even if it is expedient.
Actually, that first sentence after your disagreement is the fly in the ointment of your position. Your position is essentially reliant on "A perfect World" where everyone in the judicial system has common sense. Problem is, it's an imperfect world, where neither 'good guys' nor the 'bad guys' possess very much of it. You say you're oppsed to the ones where folks get off to light, but for the ones where they don't. Well . . .how do you control that? They clearly can't with the present system.
And the cold r3eality is that the VAST majority of plea bargains are of "the bad type" where guilty folks get off easier.
Hmm. I'd want to hear from the judges and the DAs and the criminal defense lawyers. I completely agree that the system is far from perfect, and no doubt mistakes are made. But that's not a reason to eliminate plea bargaining (negotiation).
Quote:
Now as for the need to hire gazillions more judicial support people . . . not really. For one thing, without plea agreements, the sleazeballs will be spending WAY more time in jail, and won't be tying up the Judicial system 4 times a year, year in and year out. Eliminate "the revolving door" and that frees up a LOT of time in front of the Judges bench.
I think you're confusing plea bargaining with letting people off easy. That's not the way it works. Plea bargains often result in people receiving stiff sentences and going to jail a lot sooner than they would if they insisted on trial.
Quote:
As for without pleas, the prosecutors always wanting the maximum sentence, well, that won't happen. Prosecutors like to win. Cases they don't feel are strong enough, they would not be real keen on trying to get the maximum sentence.
Again, I think you're misunderstanding what plea bargaining is. A plea bargain is always an agreement to accept less that the maximum sentence. With the exception of death penalty cases, a prosecutor doesn't have a choice to try a case for less than the statutory penalty. He tries it on guilt or innocence, and the judge sets the penalty. The theory is that if a prosecutor is forced to go the whole nine yards and prove the case to a jury, he will be less likely to recommend anything less than the maximum penalty and the judge will be less likely to impose anything less than the max. That's what leads to plea bargains in most cases. Both sides weigh what their odds are if they have to go all the way to trial, and they usually come to an agreed plea. A high percentage of the people in prison serving long terms are there because of plea bargains, not because they were convicted by a jury.
Quote:
Like I've already said, I have no problem with Prosecutors and Defense attorneys negotiating stipulated sentences subject to judicial approval by a Judge. But reducing charges needs to be reined in.
Our judicial system, at it's roots, is inherently fair. The problem has been things being added and subtracted for mere expediency . . .like pleaing serious charges down to petty and minor crimes. Expediency should never trump actual justice, and we've swayed enough from the basic roots of our system of Justice that it's hurting this country . . .even if it is expedient.
Well, there are bad plea bargains, and sometimes lazy prosecutors do agree to reduce the charges too much. But that doesn't mean plea bargains are bad per se -- it's how they are done. If anything, they probably send too many people to jail.
I'd want to get the advice of DA's and judges and probation officers on this. There's a lot of myth and misinformation about the criminal justice system out there.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,089,277 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
At the same time, it would suit me fine if they decriminalize pot -- who cares? We don't need to be spending time and money on trivial stuff like that.
Tax it like tobacco, and you're also looking at a potentially large income source instead of the current money sink.
Hmm. I'd want to hear from the judges and the DAs and the criminal defense lawyers. I completely agree that the system is far from perfect, and no doubt mistakes are made. But that's not a reason to eliminate plea bargaining (negotiation).
Well I'm not a D.A. or a Judge, but as a former paralegal, I know I'm on pretty solid ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
I think you're confusing plea bargaining with letting people off easy.
NO, I'm not
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
That's not the way it works.
I know
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Plea bargains often result in people receiving stiff sentences and going to jail a lot sooner than they would if they insisted on trial.
Often isn't really the right word. "Occasionally" would be more descriptive of the reality. The vast majority of plea agreements end up letting folks off easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Again, I think you're misunderstanding what plea bargaining is.
Again, no I'm not
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
A plea bargain is always an agreement to accept less that the maximum sentence.
Yes, it is. Generally by watering down the original charge, which is the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
With the exception of death penalty cases, a prosecutor doesn't have a choice to try a case for less than the statutory penalty.
Basically true, but there are technical exceptions. But more to the point, most penalties for most felony crimes have some flexibility. Of course as I mentioned before, there are some that don't . . .and should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
He tries it on guilt or innocence, and the judge sets the penalty.
Ehh . . . close enough for the purposes of this discussion. The Jury factors in there too, though the Judge generally has the final say. But more often than not, if prosecution and defense can reach some sort of stipulation on a penalty, the Judge will concur, so it's not like the prosecutor has no input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
The theory is that if a prosecutor is forced to go the whole nine yards and prove the case to a jury, he will be less likely to recommend anything less than the maximum penalty and the judge will be less likely to impose anything less than the max.
Not a real good theory, and it's a bit different than what you imply. I think you are referring to one of the flaws that has developed in our judicial system. Where folks are essentially strong-armed into taking a plea if they choose to exercise their right to a trial by jury. That is wrong, and one of the problems that has developed in the legal system. Essentially threatening folks if they choose to exercise their right to a fair trial before a jury of their peers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
That's what leads to plea bargains in most cases.
Covered that above
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Both sides weigh what their odds are if they have to go all the way to trial, and they usually come to an agreed plea.
And I have no problem with that, as I've pointed out. . .so long as it doesn't include watering down the charges for the actual crime committed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
A high percentage of the people in prison serving long terms are there because of plea bargains, not because they were convicted by a jury.
That simply isn't true. A high percentage of people serving long terms are for the most part doing so because no plea agreement was reached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Well, there are bad plea bargains, and sometimes lazy prosecutors do agree to reduce the charges too much.
"Sometimes" is actually less accurate than "usually"
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
But that doesn't mean plea bargains are bad per se -- it's how they are done. If anything, they probably send too many people to jail.
Yes. Too many of the wrong people. Plea bargains let guilty people off easier, and often put innocent people in jail for fear of getting an even stiffer sentence. Plea agreements are in fact bad per se.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
I'd want to get the advice of DA's and judges and probation officers on this. There's a lot of myth and misinformation about the criminal justice system out there.
Yes there is . . .and I'm trying to dispell some of it, heheh.
That simply isn't true. A high percentage of people serving long terms are for the most part doing so because no plea agreement was reached. .
Again, I'd have to disagree. The figures I've heard are that only 5-10% of criminal cases go to trial. The other 90% or so are all resolved by plea agreements.
Just to be clear, I don't think plea bargains are without problems. They give the police and prosecutors an enormous advantage, and very few people have the resources to fight them. So there is great pressure to plead to a lesser offense and try to get a lighter sentence, even if you are not guilty.
But I don't know how you'd run the courts without them. The criminal courts are almost overwhelmed as it is.
But I don't know how you'd run the courts without them. The criminal courts are almost overwhelmed as it is.
How would we do that? "Fairly"
One problem with looking at the 'raw statistics" you refer to, is that they are inclusive of all adjudicated crimes. The folks serving long sentences generally fall within the 10% you mention.
Further, from that 90% you mention . . . that is where all the sleazeballs who got off easy and commit other crimes after doing short time comes from. The Judicial systems relying so heavily on pleading out to lesser crimes is a problem, not a useful tool. It actually helps create the backlog, as I explained in an earlier post.
Take muggers like the one I mentioned earlier in this thread. If that guy had gone down for what he actually did, that being brutally beat and attempt to rob an old lady, instead of pleading out to battery, he'd be in jail a long time. One trial, and done for 20 years. But simple battery, puts him back on the street, as a danger to everyone, and most likely to end up taking up more court related time and resources. Mugs someone again . . .pleads out to a lesser charge . . .back on the street . . . mugs someone yet again, and so on it goes, repeatedly using court related resources..
So again, Plea bargaining contributes to the burden on the judicial system, and in a HUGE way. Not to mention the extra burden on society as they are repeatedly exposed to violent thugs who should have been taken out of society much earlier in their violent careers.
If ya need proof of this, and it IS the rule rather than some obscure exception, look at the past crimes most murderers have committed. The VAST majority of murders are committed by people, who if convicted on their past original charges (as opposed to what they actually pled out to) . . they wouldn't have been out to commit the murder in the first place.
I'd love to convince you of this Arjay, heheh. but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen. Oh well, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Last edited by Woodcutterron; 01-06-2011 at 03:53 PM..
Reason: changed murder to "murderER"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
