> [In 2009,] 97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence.
I don't understand how you can
1. Arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested;
2. Hold them in prison against their will;
and then
3. Bill them for it.
A fine is one thing, but stipulating that they did nothing wrong, how can they owe you money?
3: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-to-stay_(imprisonment)
As for "they did nothing wrong", in the USA people who don't have money for bail are held in jail until trial, which can be for many months, or even years in some cases. https://www.americasquarterly.org/aborn-prisons There are stories of prosecutors going to people held pending trial and offering them a deal: plead guilty, accept time served, and be out tomorrow, or maintain your innocence and carry on waiting for your trial in jail.
Not great, but what I'm complaining about here is people who are held in jail, released (after an acquittal or just a judgment that there was no good reason to pick them up in the first place), and then billed for having the temerity to be held against their will. This is not how commercial exchanges normally work. It also isn't how criminal punishments work, since -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- there is no pretense that these people did anything wrong.
Probably a lot more than we'd like to admit.
> just because they don't have the resources to fight the charges.
It's not just that they don't have the resources. It's also a matter of risk assessment because a jury can be fickle. Lets say you have 20% chance of conviction and 80% chance of acquittal. The prosecutor offers you a plea deal for 1 year ( you get out in 6 months with good behavior ). If you choose to go to trial, the prosecutor says he is going to charge you with everything he can and if found guilty, you go to prison for 25 years. What do you do? You have 20% chance of spending quarter century in prison. Or you have 100% chance of 6 months ( 1 year at the max )? I think most people would choose the latter.
> Quite perverse incentives.
In a way. The system incentivizes plea deals because the prosecutor doesn't want to lose cases. So he only wants to try cases that are open and shut and go the plea deal route with the rest.
Jury trials are expensive as fuck, and you don't get a penny of it back if you win.
The most common offenses charged are less-serious things like DUI, where first offenders are likely to receive penalties like a fine, maybe a very short community service, and probation.
If you go to trial, you always might lose, and you will pay $50k of legal fees.
If the prosecutor offers you a $10k fine, what're you going to do?
Even if you could raise the $50k -- of you go to trial and lose (which is always possible), you are likely to get close to the maximum penalty for having fought.
Consider this: Japan was a medieval society 152 years ago and then an Imperial militarist state that has modernised under US occupation. They're still quite strict and traditionalist today, like to enforce conformity.