Hacker News Reader

Comment by JNaz | Hacker News Reader

I can see how the average reader would read the headline and article and come to the conclusion that this is evidence of another flaw in the justice system. One problem, however, is the emphasis the article places on federal courts. Federal criminal charges are, by their nature, rare. Big drug investigations, terrorism cases, human trafficking, etc. If the feds are on it, it's likely a more elaborate case requiring many more law enforcement resources, more evidence gathered, multiple defendants, etc. It's no surprise these cases infrequently go to trial, they require longer to investigate and prepare, they are more infrequent, and there's so much evidence and the odds are so against the defendants that most defense lawyers advise their clients to plea out. The federal bench, therefore, is a very different beast from state courts where you see the majority of criminal cases tried.

View on HN

I claim you are simply wrong.

The proportion of state defendants who receive trials has also become very small and while the Times article primarily referenced Federal jury trials, it also referred trials in general and plea bargaining has made trials an exception rather than a rule at all levels.

See the following article:

"Ninety-seven percent of federal criminal prosecutions are resolved by plea bargain. In state courts the numbers are comparable."

http://thecrimereport.org/2014/01/07/2014-01-how-plea-bargai...

It's a major flaw even according to federal judges:

--------

Former Judge John Gleeson, who in March stepped down from the federal bench in Brooklyn to enter private practice, noted in a 2013 court opinion that 81 percent of federal convictions in 1980 were the product of guilty pleas; in one recent year, the figure was 97 percent.

Judge Gleeson wrote that because most pleas are negotiated before a prosecutor prepares a case for trial, the “thin presentation” of evidence needed for indictment “is hardly ever subjected to closer scrutiny by prosecutors, defense counsel, judges or juries.”

--------

Fair, but it begs the question as to whether State level trials have increased proportionallly

Why should State trials increase if Federal trial decrease? They are two separate jurisdictions, with different prosecutors, crimes, etc. They are not that closely linked.

I cringe every time I see begs the question in its modern usage. Please don't take this as a personal attack. Just sayin'.

I personally like the diversity of expressive thought myself, and you should embrace it too, probably as it is, today's youth might laugh at your use of "just sayin'" and prefer you simply communicate using emojis. It would be pretty damn boring if we all spoke the same.

I feel your pain, but I also don't know better way to express what I just expressed

"Raises the question"

"begs" as in "begs an answer to", which is the common usage. The formal logic usage of that term always seemed bizarre to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

"The term "begging the question", as this is usually phrased, originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates as "assuming the initial point"."

Citation: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290

"[Aristotle] specified thirteen fallacies, one of which ... is "assuming the original conclusion". This amounts to arguing that "P, therefore P" ... Some medieval translator decided to translate Aristotle's "assuming the conclusion" into petitio principii. In classical Latin, petitio meant "... a request, petition". But in post-classical Latin petitio was also used to mean "a postulate" ... And principium meant "a beginning, commencement, origin" ... "the original point". From the 14th century onwards, many writers in English used the Latin term to discuss this rhetorical technique ... But starting in the late 16th century, the English phrase "to beg the question" began to sneak into use as an vulgar alternative to petitio principii."

A translation from Greek into a Latin phrase, using a word with multiple meanings (and choosing a meaning that is now rather obscure, especially to English speakers who know the word "petition"); and some who translated it into English chose the more common meaning and got the wrong phrase, quite distinct from the original.

Anyone who says that "begging the question" means "assuming the conclusion" is clearly, clearly wrong.

:-)

I am aware of the common usage. The correct phrase is "raises the question" when used in the common usage way.

If you want to use begs as in "begs an answer to" then use "begs an answer to".

Or, if you want to say "assuming the conclusion" say "assuming the conclusion", rather than demanding that the nonsensical common usage of "begs the question" stand aside for your preferred nonsensical usage, based some dubious notion of "correctness".

Common usage in the US != common usage anywhere else.

Ah, a linguistic prescriptivist! :)

Thank you.

They are not as rare as they were previously. Also, a lot of these crimes are prosecuted with increasingly complicated and abstract offenses that are difficult and expensive to litigate.

It's easy to blame prosecutors, but as the upper courts have become more political, and as politics has become more insane, this complexity has been driven into the system. A great example is public corruption -- look at recent cases in New York and Virginia. There's a good probability that if a legislator had a tip jar on his desk and didn't vote until the till hit a certain level, a subsequent conviction would be overturned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com