But there's still a lot of variation in how you get to that situation. E.g. how willing are the police to investigate cases that have a low chance of conviction? How willing are they to coerce confessions or fabricate evidence? Is sentencing and plea-bargaining designed to encourage early guilty pleas regardless of innocence? At trial, how willing are judges to lead juries towards a guilty verdict? These kind of issues are at play in every country's criminal justice system, but, for a modern democracy, Japan seems to have a particularly pervasive culture of police intimidation and coercion.
Quick example, you own a gun in your Florida home. Unbeknownst to you, your (idiot) cousin smokes a joint in the driveway before leaving and leaves joint on your table. Neighbors call police, they enter your home (based on smell) and find a gun and a joint. You are looking at 10 YEARS in federal jail [i] as a prohibited gun owner, a few months in county (for the joint), possibly some time in state prison for child endangerment (kids were home), and the CPS took your kids that day. IT DOES NOT MATTER if your are innocent or guilty you will do a plea deal. No jury for you. US prosecutors rely on extremely harsh possible sentences to bully innocent defendants into jail.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2...
If you believed the possible punishment were indeed proportional to the crime, would you still be outraged at plea bargaining? And would the same logic apply to any variance reduction strategy (like insurance) or just this one?
You mean if there was a fine of $1 per domain (per year?) as opposed to possible felony under CFAA to scrape public documents on the Internet? I don't want to get into moral nihilism or whatever we call it but what is a crime? Why are some acts criminal? What makes them different from a civil suit between two parties?
Sorry if I sound insane. I may be but the cause is just. Help abolish the CFAA https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa
Because you don't get one of the fundamental constitutional rights our country was founded on: The right to a jury. Prosecutors should be forced to face a jury.
In a plea bargain, the state is recognizing your right to a trial; that’s why they can’t just give you the punishment directly! They are offering a reduced sentence in exchange for you waiving that right. At no point is the right not recognized, unless you think that’s what happens with guilty pleas too.
(Edited to provide explanation rather than funny but confusing skit.)
That effectively removes your right to a jury trial, particularly when the natural human tendency of a juror is to split the baby, i.e. if you get charged with 60 counts they're unlikely to find you "not guilty" on all 60 regardless of circumstances.
I agree with OP - if the crime isn't important enough to take to trial, it's not important enough to prosecute. Furthermore I would add judges should sanction prosecutors for overcharging. If I have $100k in cash I put into the bank in $5k increments that's one charge of Structuring with a potential five year sentence - I shouldn't be looking at twenty charges with a century in jail if I refuse the plea.
The problem is the incentives are set up such that the charges will not be reasonable. They can't be reasonable, since the state can't possibly afford to take more than a tiny percentage of cases to trial. Which sets up another incentive - the state must make an example out of people who demand a trial to encourage everyone else to take the plea.
To gozur88 if you see this, I am pretty worried about this too, and it seems like a huge violation of our rights that charges can be placed on individuals simply for leverage in a negotiation between the state and the individual. It is actually pretty absurd that we allow any kind of negotiation whatsoever in criminal courts because the usual principles of consent that are usually prerequisites to legally binding negotiations are absent. An individual is threatened with violence and then from that position are not on equal footing with the prosecution.
There's an increasing delay between when a comment is posted and when you can reply, based on the depth. The idea is to create a "cooldown" period for people who are upset. You would have been able to reply to my comment eventually.
Even on a too-crude statistical level we can see the problem: if an innocent person has a 20% chance of being convicted, but the offered plea bargain is 1 year and the maximum sentence is 10 years, innocent people will do better by pleading guilty. The "10 years" is a problem, but it's a consequence of wanting to drive plea bargains.
(The fundamental problem in this case is the 20% chance, but frankly no one seems to have any hope for a system that doesn't regularly convict innocents.)
This is why most societies allow guilty pleas in the first place!
A plea bargain is nothing but a guilty plea + certainty about the sentence. If you're okay with guilty pleas but not plea bargains, then you think the introduction of certainty in the sentence makes it somehow worse. That's hard to justify.
I reiterate that the focus on the "plea bargain" part of this whole thing seems misplaced. If anything, it's the part that makes sense; the problem is the high penalties and bad-faith charges, which is what should be penalized.
>if an innocent person has a 20% chance of being convicted, but the offered plea bargain is 1 year and the maximum sentence is 10 years, innocent people will do better by pleading guilty. The "10 years" is a problem, but it's a consequence of wanting to drive plea bargains.
>(The fundamental problem in this case is the 20% chance,
That sounds more like tilting against the windmill of "variance in extreme events". We also have the problem that there's a 1% chance of being in a car accident with tens of thousands of dollars in costs. In most cases, we shrug and say "insure it" -- i.e. trade a small probability of extreme loss for a guaranteed smaller one. Why do we see it as suddenly a problem when people do the same thing in the justice system?
Every legit example of it being a catastrophe turns out to draw its entire badness from some other already-bad part of the justice system, not the plea bargaining.
Horrifying. Ok. So slavery is back in the game. Hey, sign this and if you don't meet the requirements you are a slave -- you are "waiving that right". I am sure you are trolling.... right?
I think a good system would be to offer plea-bargains but only at a set percentage reduction of the original sentence, and only if the suspect isn't under some other form of pressure from the police. That would still encourage people who know the police have a very solid case against them to take the bargain, but not do much to encourage people who think they have a real shot at winning a trial by jury.
Will take my Florida chances :)
(This is also why so many wealthy individuals make it their state of residence, besides no state income tax)
For you to be caught with clause C the prosecutor just needs to prove the gun wasn't manufactured in your state. Example you own a glock pistol (popular), what you would find is fine print like: "Glocks for sale in the U.S. are made in Austria and assembled in Smyrna GA." Reading that as a defendant would be depressing since it extremely easy to prove - just getting a fax from the company would end it. Then if you look at ammunition, "9mm - 115 Grain FMJ - Tula - 500 Rounds" (as a popular example) you would see fine print such as: "TulAmmo is sourced from eastern countries like Russia and uses wartime-proven methods of manufacturing and material selection in order to make ammunition as affordable and practical as possible".
An attorney's website (i suppose he has experience): "If the firearm in question was manufactured in a state other than the state in which possession or receipt occurred, a jury may, but are not required to, find that it was transported across a state line." [i]
[i] http://dnadefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...
In all honesty, I think federal prosecutors wont really care about (C) since proving it takes about 10 minutes with a fax machine and they have NEVER seen a case where the gun (and components) and bullets were manufactured in the same state. If they were manufactured in your state I would consider yourself one lucky [expletive].
That might be the problem then?
You'll find in this movie exactly what the parent describes, the apology culture as well as how difficult the system makes it for you once you've been accused of an offense.
>Although Japan's rate of homicide is low compared to many other advanced countries, Japan's rate of unexpected deaths including homicides, traffic accidents, industrial accidents, and suicides is near the median among the selected advanced industrial countries.