Hacker News Reader

Comment by jennyyang | Hacker News Reader

The conviction rate is very high, upwards of 85% in some states. So it's not like large swaths of completely innocent people are being held in jails. I'm okay with pre-trial incarceration as long as everyone gets treated equally.

Since they aren't, I think non-cash bail is a good idea, with strict requirements to check in with an officer, etc. If they don't meet their appointments or break the terms of their bail, I'm also okay to see them incarcerated pre-trial.

However, there needs to be some provision to make sure that they don't stay in jail longer than what their offense would have garnered. If someone is in jail pre-trial for half the median time an average punishment if they were found guilty, then the charges should be immediately dropped. This should give prosecutors more incentive to get their acts together and have a trial in a reasonable amount of time.

View on HN

The conviction rate is because people are forced to plea out to avoid the stacked overcharging done by prosecutors. You either take the 1-5, or go to trial and risk 20 to Life. The conviction rate at the state level is most certainly not something to be proud of because of the way it's obtained

>...However, there needs to be some provision to make sure that they don't stay in jail longer than what their offense would have garnered.

Well, in the US Constitution, they talk about a "speedy trial". But since this is the US, the US Constitution doesn't have too much weight. Failure to waive your right to a speedy trial can result in your public defender getting beat down by the judge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/1...

Funny story but the public defender jumped at the chance to "go out back and fight". And the judge got first sanctioned then lost his job.

And I rather doubt the 85 percent is dominated by innocent people accused of first degree murder pleading it down to 1-5.

I was being kind of sarcastic with the 1-5 -> 20+, but the point still stands, you can look at being home to see your child finish high school, or be a grandfather to a teenager when you are released.

I assumed your remark was serious and in my experience that is an accurate statement of how prosecutors work. In my jurisdiction until July of 2018, three burglary’s or three selling marijuana convictions could in fact result in a manditory life sentence and people will certainly take the 5 year sentence as opposed to risking the 20 years or possibly life.

Not an expert, but I imagine the conviction rate is high because prosecutors make it the path-of-least resistance to freedom. Competent legal assistance is expensive, and building a defense is also expensive and time-consuming. So I wouldn't say that an 85% conviction rate implies anything about the innocence of pre-trial prisoners. Moreover, I think it is dangerous to do so, lest it be a circular argument: why did you arrest him? He was guilty. Why was he guilty? Because I arrested him.

It would be interesting to see data on how many charges are dropped. You are correct that cases are submitted to the DA, they look at all the evidence and decide whether or not they will prosecute. A big part of that is "can I even get a conviction?"

So you'd expect a relatively high conviction rate just based on the fact that cases where conviction is unlikely are filtered out before they ever get to trial.

The data, as amazed by organizations like the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, tends to show that prosecutors accept upwards of 80% of charges submitted for prosecution by law enforcement and that grand jury’s will indict upwards of 95% of cases presented to them. [1] The common phrasing amongst lawyers is that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich and that a DA will accept as many charges at the highest level they can and that they’ll see what might stick later.

1 - Those grand jury numbers are why the Breonna Taylor non-indictment is so angering

Interesting. So using the rough numbers, an average of 68% of people (85% * 80%) arrested will agree to a plea agreement.

That is probably a fair assumption of the average on a national scale. I know in my jurisdiction it is somewhere near 88%.

As long as you remember "can I even get a conviction" does not mean, "do I even think the defendant is guilty".

It means just that - "can I even get a conviction".

>So you'd expect a relatively high conviction rate just based on the fact that cases where conviction is unlikely are filtered out before they ever get to trial.

Except non-prosecution is a tiny percentage of cases where no trial is held. Only 2% of Federal criminal cases actually go to trial[0], and 97% end with the defendant pleading to a lesser charge.

Overall, something like 90-95% of all criminal cases in the US end with a plea bargain[1]

Usually, the prosecutor uses the threat of jail or prison (for more minor offenses) or the threat of lengthy (15 years? Life?) for more serious ones to force a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge. And this is true even if the defendant is innocent of the crime charged.

And when someone is poor and can't afford bail, prosecutors can exert even more pressure to force a plea bargain[2], as the defendant (whether or not they actually committed a crime) will sit in jail either until they agree to plead guilty to something or go to trial.

How long would you keep your job if you were sitting in jail? How long before you couldn't pay your rent/mortgage without income from that job? Or even worse, if you're a single parent, how long could you retain custody of your children?

And it just gets worse. Should you plead guilty, you now have a criminal record and most employers won't hire you.

And remember, these are people who haven't been convicted of a crime, and no court or jury has heard their case. Yet many people's lives are ruined just because they're poor and can't afford to pay bail.

Edit: Fixed percentage of overall cases which end with a plea bargain.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-f...

[1] https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/docu... [PDF]

[2] https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/docu...

The US system is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. We should not be ok with denying a person’s freedom while they are presumed innocent. Additionally the conviction rate has nothing to do with actual guilt. Many people plea to get it over with.

I did this myself in the early 90s shortly after turning 18. I was charged with class 3 misdemeanor disorderly conduct for skateboarding. My lawyer thought we could beat it but I was poor and starting college hundreds of miles away. I was afraid of the disruption to my studies plus the costs of going to trial. It was easier to plea to a lesser charge (summary offense, like a traffic ticket) and move on.

This scenario plays out for many people and has little to do with actual guilt.

Conviction rate includes guilty verdicts as well as guilty and no contest pleas. Those pleas are heavily influenced by the use of cash bail as a pressure tactic to get plea acceptance. Something like 90% of cases don’t ever see a trial.

Your optimizing for a variable that doesn’t mean at all what you think it means

Ok, so let's assume that only those 15% are actually innocent. Is that a low number? If yes, then what if it was 20%? 25% when does it stop to be ok to ask innocent people to potentially lose their jobs, custody of their children etc or put themselves una debt spiral instead?

You're completely innocent until you've been proven guilty; before trial, the conviction rate is irrelevant to whether the person is innocent

> You're completely innocent until you've been proven guilty

Nitpick: you’re presumed innocent, which is very different from saying you’re actually introvert.

>Nitpick: you’re presumed innocent, which is very different from saying you’re actually introvert.

No. Actual introverts are always guilty. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com