What do you think about "plea deals?"

[Seymour Flops]

I respect the theory behind them. Sometimes people seem clearly guilty, but the evidence against them might not hold for a conviction. It may be better to apply consequences for a lesser offence than to allow that person to go free after a trial.

But, it is also open to abuse, and we have seen it used to force innocent people into pleading guilty in order to avoid the risk of a trial.

What say you?

 

[shockedcanadian]

I respect the theory behind them. Sometimes people seem clearly guilty, but the evidence against them might not hold for a conviction. It may be better to apply consequences for a lesser offence than to allow that person to go free after a trial.

But, it is also open to abuse, and we have seen it used to force innocent people into pleading guilty in order to avoid the risk of a trial.

What say you?

If I am innocent I cannot plead. One has to have faith in the truth and the judge understanding the truth. I go as far as I can and expose as much as I can so that the person making a false allegation and those in their orbit are exposed. Keep faith in G-d and be a Mensch not a mouse. Too many mice in Toronto, many of them in positions of authority...

To each their own, everyone has their own circumstances. For me, I cannot put my hand on a bible and lie if I am innocent. My soul is worth more than some dishonest criminal lawyer, cop or justice system.

Now if I am guilty, sure, take a deal. Otherwise, pray for the truth and have the eye of the tiger.

Many Crown Attorneys don't care about your life or the truth, they will squeeze you. Keep G-d on your side and pray the judge understands the truth. Reach out to media and all you can if you are innocent, don't let evil prevail. Ever.

I have to face this fear with my wife after years of the worst abuse and the corrupt police who have terrorized me for decades. Everyone from CSIS to news media here (multiple, high ranking talking heads who can make editorial decisions) U.S organization and the most well known politicians in Canada have heard from me, and I've provided enough details for them to understand how much I have been wrong and for how long.

The details so specific that I have to hope they do what is right and advise anyone looking to persecute me in order to steal my home to basically refrain from the continued human right abuses.

There was a show on a few years ago in which a man was facing many years in prison, I think it was called "guilty or innocent". I watched many of these shows, often infuriated by the pressures they apply to men and women. Anyways, this guy was offered NO prison time but he would have a record. It was a crime he said he did not do and he refused the offer.

His lawyer was shocked. He was unaccustomed to seeing men take a stance based on principle and not fear and cowardice. He advised him to take the deal but he said "no. How can I look at myself for the rest of my life knowing I lied because I feared their worst? How can I tell my kid to do what's right if I fold under pressure"?

I was tortured by cowardly cops and still kept my mouth shut. I've been bullied and beaten by kids in school and kept my mouth shut. I not lived a perfect life, but as an adult I have tried to stay the course when it matters. This is how we feed our soul.

If you know the truth, speak it until you are coarse in the throat. Make sure that you are not the only one on trial.

 

[jotathought]

I respect the theory behind them. Sometimes people seem clearly guilty, but the evidence against them might not hold for a conviction. It may be better to apply consequences for a lesser offence than to allow that person to go free after a trial.

But, it is also open to abuse, and we have seen it used to force innocent people into pleading guilty in order to avoid the risk of a trial.

What say you?

Plea deals don't always end with "going free" afterward. They often end in reduced charges, lighter sentences or other concessions.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Plea deals don't always end with "going free" afterward. They often end in reduced charges, lighter sentences or other concessions.

A man has to be a man of conviction and you are correct, one might take a plead and still get railroaded. How many of us came on here in spport of Israek at a time when we KNEW that so many would hate us for our stance. I was reading a book on Judaism on the bus and one guy stared at me like I was a POS. He doesnt know me or my faith, but he will judge me. thou Shalt Not Bear False.Witness. If you are innocent,.dont take a plea. Face the L-rd with good.conscience. Right? By the way I love the subject matter, these quesrions aren't easy to answer, each of us are different.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Plea deals don't always end with "going free" afterward. They often end in reduced charges, lighter sentences or other concessions.

Correct.

My words "go free after a trial," would apply to a person who did not take a plea deal, and was found not guilty due to not enough admissable evidence.

 

[jotathought]

A man has to be a man of conviction and you are correct, one might take a plead and still get railroaded. How many of us came on here in spport of Israek at a time when we KNEW that so many would hate us for our stance. I was reading a book on Judaism on the bus and one guy stared at me like I was a POS. He doesnt know me or my faith, but he will judge me. thou Shalt Not Bear False.Witness. If you are innocent,.dont take a plea. Face the L-rd with good.conscience. Right? By the way I love the subject matter, these quesrions aren't easy to answer, each of us are different.

Taking a plea means relinquishing certain rights, such as a trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination. Reading the statistics, 98% of current federal cases end in plea bargains, and it really depends on your criminal history and charges on what puts an individual in a better spot. The other main reasons for plea bargains are cost savings, dedication of time by prosecutors/defense, overpopulation in prisons, and harsher outcomes.

If I were to get a felony charge downgraded to a misdemeanor and spend a few days in jail, that would be a much better outcome than a jury may decide, which would include 1+ years in prison, depending on the crime. Using a plea bargain incriminates the defendant -- they are pleading guilty.

 

[jotathought]

Correct.

My words "go free after a trial," would apply to a person who did not take a plea deal, and was found not guilty due to not enough admissable evidence.

Ahh .. gotcha. Mis-interpreted that. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Taking a plea means relinquishing certain rights, such as a trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination. Reading the statistics, 98% of current federal cases end in plea bargains, and it really depends on your criminal history and charges on what puts an individual in a better spot. The other main reasons for plea bargains are cost savings, dedication of time by prosecutors/defense, overpopulation in prisons, and harsher outcomes.

If I were to get a felony charge downgraded to a misdemeanor and spend a few days in jail, that would be a much better outcome than a jury may decide, which would include 1+ years in prison, depending on the crime. Using a plea bargain incriminates the defendant -- they are pleading guilty.

Yes, to agree to a plea deal, especially if you feel the police corruption.is.rampant is a strike on ones soul. As the show I described, how can one look at themselves in the mirror if they betrayed their morals?

 

[jotathought]

Yes, to agree to a plea deal, especially if you feel the police corruption.is.rampant is a strike on ones soul. As the show I described, how can one look at themselves in the mirror if they betrayed their morals?

Unfortunately, that's usually not the case -- most people want to take advantage of the possible reduced sentence or charges to minimize their consequences, while many attempt to flee law enforcement to not be incarcerated or reap their consequences.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, to agree to a plea deal, especially if you feel the police corruption.is.rampant is a strike on ones soul. As the show I described, how can one look at themselves in the mirror if they betrayed their morals?

Yes, and too often people are presented a choice of betraying their morals and carrying a record of guilt, but serving no prison time, or spending five years putting on lipstick and trading blowjobs for cigarettes in order to avoid being killed by their celly.

 

[Muhammed]

I respect the theory behind them. Sometimes people seem clearly guilty, but the evidence against them might not hold for a conviction. It may be better to apply consequences for a lesser offence than to allow that person to go free after a trial.

But, it is also open to abuse, and we have seen it used to force innocent people into pleading guilty in order to avoid the risk of a trial.

What say you?

A dear friend of mine was kidnapped and taken to the basement of an abandoned theater where she was raped tortured and mutilated for hours before she was murdered by serial killers Anthony and Nathaniel Cook. She was only 12 years old.

It was an easy open and shut death penalty case because the police had all kinds of biological evidence, DNA and even surviving victims who identified them after they were left for dead.

The Democrat prosecutor, Julia Bates, gave the racially motivated serial killers a sweetheart plea bargain that took the death penalty off the table and let Nathaniel Cook out after a mere 20 years.

That rapist & serial killer is a free man today.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I respect the theory behind them. Sometimes people seem clearly guilty, but the evidence against them might not hold for a conviction. It may be better to apply consequences for a lesser offence than to allow that person to go free after a trial.

But, it is also open to abuse, and we have seen it used to force innocent people into pleading guilty in order to avoid the risk of a trial.

What say you?

I’m dead set against them. Either the prosecution has a case against a criminal or it doesn’t.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I’m dead set against them. Either the prosecution has a case against a criminal or it doesn’t.

After reading the well thought-out posts of this thread, I am leaning toward that opinion also.

Thanks to all!

 

[d0gbreath]

Without plea deals, it would take 15 years for your speedy trial to come up on the docket.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Without plea deals, it would take 15 years for your speedy trial to come up on the docket.

Then build more courts and hire more judges.

 

[JoeB131]

I respect the theory behind them. Sometimes people seem clearly guilty, but the evidence against them might not hold for a conviction. It may be better to apply consequences for a lesser offence than to allow that person to go free after a trial.

But, it is also open to abuse, and we have seen it used to force innocent people into pleading guilty in order to avoid the risk of a trial.

What say you?

Actually, it's an abuse. Here's the reality- Most criminal cases are pretty much open and shut. The cops caught you doing what you were supposed to be doing.

But to have a jury trial for all 7.36 million arrests we have in this country, every year, would be a logistical impossibility.

So prosecutors have to triage. Some cases they'll let off with a fine, some with a minimal jail sentence, and some they will overcharge to get them to plea to lower charges.

Which kind of sucks if you are the innocent person whose lawyer sells you out, or you go to a jury with incompetent representation and get a much stiffer sentence.

 

[JoeB131]

Then build more courts and hire more judges.

7.36 million arrests a year, and 40 million traffic offenses.

We really don't have the resources to litigate all of them.