Plea bargaining speaks more of the public attitude than actual justice.

[the watcher]

I think the accountability and accepting responsibility for your actions has been abandoned not only by the legal system but the public in general. Everyone is a victim these days. This guy offered an Alec Baldwin plea, where his finger may have played a part in the unliving of this woman. Man used girlfriend's gun to kill her in kids' room, then kissed her on cheek and ran

 

[the watcher]

They got the wrong man.

 

[pknopp]

We elect prosecutors. They have races to win every few years with many having their sights on higher offices.

If a prosecutor loses a case like this their career is harmed. So this was about the prosecutors career not getting justice for the dead woman or what is best for the family.

 

[the watcher]

Agree, It also reflects on the lack of confidence in a jury willing to convict. They always want "the video", a confession, and there is also a preconceived notion of police shenanigans, real or imaginary. This guy will be out in 3 or 4 years and we will have to go through this again.

 

[candycorn]

We elect prosecutors. They have races to win every few years with many having their sights on higher offices.

If a prosecutor loses a case like this their career is harmed. So this was about the prosecutors career not getting justice for the dead woman or what is best for the family.

I disagree. Its more about making sure the system doesn't collapse. If everyone who was under arrest went to trial...that would absolutely destroy the court system. Think about it. The FBI says about 25,000-30,000 people are arrested every day. In a week, that would be nearly 200,000 cases that have to be heard. Now I'm not saying they will be heard every week but eventually with that sort of caseload...the backlog will dwarf any court resources available. I mean thats a almost a million cases a month, every month. There aren't enough district attorneys to do a fraction of that. So the plea bargain is more to move the system along than to protect someone's career.

Most times when the state goes to trial, they win. My own personal take on it is that the jurors--no matter how impartial they are--go into it thinking, "Well, if they arrested the guy, he must be guilty." And you end up having to prove your innocence. Often this is where a good attorney comes in and she or he can frame the evidence for the jury--pardon the pun. Since most arrestees can't afford a good attorney...they lose.

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree. Its more about making sure the system doesn't collapse. If everyone who was under arrest went to trial...that would absolutely destroy the court system. Think about it. The FBI says about 25,000-30,000 people are arrested every day. In a week, that would be nearly 200,000 cases that have to be heard. There aren't enough district attorneys to do a fraction of that. So the plea bargain is more to move the system along than to protect someone's career.

Most times when the state goes to trial, they win. My own personal take on it is that the jurors--no matter how impartial they are--go into it thinking, "Well, if they arrested the guy, he must be guilty." And you end up having to prove your innocence. Often this is where a good attorney comes in and she or he can frame the evidence for the jury--pardon the pun. Since most arrestees can't afford a good attorney...they lose.

The wheels of justice move slowly.
If every suspect took advantage of every legal challenge, the system could not process everyone.

Plea bargain allows them to clear the caseload

 

[candycorn]

The wheels of justice move slowly.
If every suspect took advantage of every legal challenge, the system could not process everyone.

Plea bargain allows them to clear the caseload

I agree.

But doesn't it also perhaps suggest that we arrest too many people?

 

[rightwinger]

I agree.

But doesn't it also perhaps suggest that we arrest too many people?

Prosecutors pile on the charges so that they can bargain them out later

 

[pknopp]

I disagree. Its more about making sure the system doesn't collapse. If everyone who was under arrest went to trial...that would absolutely destroy the court system. Think about it. The FBI says about 25,000-30,000 people are arrested every day. In a week, that would be nearly 200,000 cases that have to be heard. Now I'm not saying they will be heard every week but eventually with that sort of caseload...the backlog will dwarf any court resources available. I mean thats a almost a million cases a month, every month. There aren't enough district attorneys to do a fraction of that. So the plea bargain is more to move the system along than to protect someone's career.

Most times when the state goes to trial, they win. My own personal take on it is that the jurors--no matter how impartial they are--go into it thinking, "Well, if they arrested the guy, he must be guilty." And you end up having to prove your innocence. Often this is where a good attorney comes in and she or he can frame the evidence for the jury--pardon the pun. Since most arrestees can't afford a good attorney...they lose.

There are many people in the system who never should be.

If we can't try someone for murder, we should just shut it all down.

 

[candycorn]

There are many people in the system who never should be.

If we can't try someone for murder, we should just shut it all down.

Murder is unique. I can't speak for anyone but myself but no amount of punishment (up to and including death) would ever deliver justice to me if someone I treasured was murdered. But I understand the point you were trying to make.

 

[candycorn]

Prosecutors pile on the charges so that they can bargain them out later

Well yeah but if the stat I saw was true--25,000+ arrests a day--that is just apprehensions; not the piling on you're speaking of.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The wheels of justice move slowly.
If every suspect took advantage of every legal challenge, the system could not process everyone.

Plea bargain allows them to clear the caseload

When you're right, you're right.

Prosecution is by definition a government activity, so it will be staffed mainly by third-raters, with a few highly motivated and talented attorneys who are either getting enough experience and contacts to move to the defense side and charge wealthy defendants hundreds per hour, and some second-raters looking to climb the political ladder.

That said, plea bargaining is not one of their sins. It is a way to get criminals punished, rather than set free because some ADA lost a piece of evidence, or numbered it wrong.

We only have so much jail space and court docket time, so what is the alternative to plea bargaining?

 

[the watcher]

I disagree. Its more about making sure the system doesn't collapse. If everyone who was under arrest went to trial...that would absolutely destroy the court system. Think about it. The FBI says about 25,000-30,000 people are arrested every day. In a week, that would be nearly 200,000 cases that have to be heard. Now I'm not saying they will be heard every week but eventually with that sort of caseload...the backlog will dwarf any court resources available. I mean thats a almost a million cases a month, every month. There aren't enough district attorneys to do a fraction of that. So the plea bargain is more to move the system along than to protect someone's career.

Most times when the state goes to trial, they win. My own personal take on it is that the jurors--no matter how impartial they are--go into it thinking, "Well, if they arrested the guy, he must be guilty." And you end up having to prove your innocence. Often this is where a good attorney comes in and she or he can frame the evidence for the jury--pardon the pun. Since most arrestees can't afford a good attorney...they lose.

Have you ever been on a jury, or one with a murder charge? I don't know where you live but I haven't ever seen that from any jury that I have been on that act like that. There's a lot of discussion and if anything most want to give the benefit of a doubt. The last juries I've witnessed ( the shooting of his estranged wife by a FBI agent in Virginia) the jury was obsessed with the circumstantial evidence and lack of videotape and couldn't seem to process witness testimony. If anything the process is tilted to the defendants' favor with rules of evidence.

 

[rightwinger]

Have you ever been on a jury, or one with a murder charge? I don't know where you live but I haven't ever seen that from any jury that I have been on that act like that. There's a lot of discussion and if anything most want to give the benefit of a doubt. The last juries I've witnessed ( the shooting of his estranged wife by a FBI agent in Virginia) the jury was obsessed with the circumstantial evidence and lack of videotape and couldn't seem to process witness testimony. If anything the process is tilted to the defendants' favor with rules of evidence.

The juries I have been on take things very seriously
There was no presumption of guilt.

One thing I noticed was juries watch too much TV.
They expect video and DNA in every case

 

[candycorn]

Have you ever been on a jury, or one with a murder charge? I don't know where you live but I haven't ever seen that from any jury that I have been on that act like that. There's a lot of discussion and if anything most want to give the benefit of a doubt. The last juries I've witnessed ( the shooting of his estranged wife by a FBI agent in Virginia) the jury was obsessed with the circumstantial evidence and lack of videotape and couldn't seem to process witness testimony. If anything the process is tilted to the defendants' favor with rules of evidence.

It’s done so to overcome the innate prejudice that comes with the job. Of course.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I disagree. Its more about making sure the system doesn't collapse. If everyone who was under arrest went to trial...that would absolutely destroy the court system. Think about it. The FBI says about 25,000-30,000 people are arrested every day. In a week, that would be nearly 200,000 cases that have to be heard. Now I'm not saying they will be heard every week but eventually with that sort of caseload...the backlog will dwarf any court resources available. I mean thats a almost a million cases a month, every month. There aren't enough district attorneys to do a fraction of that. So the plea bargain is more to move the system along than to protect someone's career.

Most times when the state goes to trial, they win. My own personal take on it is that the jurors--no matter how impartial they are--go into it thinking, "Well, if they arrested the guy, he must be guilty." And you end up having to prove your innocence. Often this is where a good attorney comes in and she or he can frame the evidence for the jury--pardon the pun. Since most arrestees can't afford a good attorney...they lose.

Prosecutors also generally have the ethics of Jack the Ripper and the morals of Charles Manson. They don't care if they have the right person, as long as they can lock SOMEONE up.

 

[candycorn]

Prosecutors also generally have the ethics of Jack the Ripper and the morals of Charles Manson. They don't care if they have the right person, as long as they can lock SOMEONE up.

Nonsense.

 

[Dekster]

Plea bargains are for lazy prosecutors who don't want to have to do their job or risk having the jury go against them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Nonsense.

No, that's you. There have been more than two hundred innocent people freed just from death row. Most of those were convicted at least in part to prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[candycorn]

No, that's you. There have been more than two hundred innocent people freed just from death row. Most of those were convicted at least in part to prosecutorial misconduct.

No doubt about it...innocent people go to prison.

The number you quote is in the hundreds. I think there are currently something like 2M Americans in prison right now in addition to countless numbers who served their sentence and are on parole.

One is too many but zero isn’t a standard that is attainable. Hundreds out of millions is no sign that "They don't care if they have the right person, as long as they can lock SOMEONE up."