Hacker News Reader

Comment by foepys | Hacker News Reader

I never understood the concept of "plea bargain" in the USA that comes up in the article. Either somebody is guilty and should be convicted by a judge or they are not guilty and should have the chance for a fair trial. I can see that there are situations where they can be useful but they seem to be the norm instead of being used in certain, limited situations. Scaring somebody into pleading guilty for a lesser sentence is simply unfair and in my eyes undemocratic.

View on HN

Classic paper comparing the whole "plea bargaining" system to medieval torture:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/543/

What I never got isn't how plea bargains are treated differently than bribing a witness. You're paying the witness (defendant) in the form of a lesser punishment to possibly commit PERJURY by admitting to doing something they didn't in a court of law. Just because the bribe isn't with currency doesn't mean it's not a bribe. And even ignoring that fact, it's still perjury. How is that legal?

And before someone says it's similar to pleading not guilty when you are guilty, AFAIK, a plea bargain is different; It's an admission of guilt, not a declaration of guilt. Declaration != admission.

In my younger days, I was offered a plea bargain to plead nolo contendre (no contest, as in "I do not contest the charge nor do I admit guilt") to a lesser charge in exchange for: probation, adjudication withheld (no conviction on my record) and, once probation was served, record expungement.

I got the impression it was because the state's attorney felt I would best learn my lesson with that outcome than the otherwise mandatory sentence for the crime with which I was originally charged — non-violent, mind you; it was a bounced check. Yes, really.

So in some cases, plea bargaining is a "way out" of otherwise too-harsh sentencing. Yes, the sentencing guidelines should be overhauled, but in today's legislative climate, the path of least resistance is simply to allow the prosecution the flexibility to charge a defendant with a lesser crime.

The path of least resistance is a crappy rubric.

The prosecution already has the flexibility to decline to prosecute. They shouldn't prosecute anyone who doesn't deserve to be punished. In theory, it's an important check on the legal system, but in practice, it turns out attorneys like being employed, so they make work for themselves.

I guess here the point was that here we had someone who deserved to be punished. But a slap on the wrist was a more appropriate punishment than putting the person in jail - and at the same time, not prosecuting wasn't appropriate either.

Plea bargains should be illegal. The state cannot only afford to take a small percentage of cases to trial, so there's an institutional imperative to force people to take pleas, which they do by overcharging.

Just from a purely game theory perspective, as a defendant you can easily find yourself in a position where it's stupid to reject the bargain even if you're innocent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com