Plea-bargaining Away Freedom

[bobevenson]

The easiest way to convict somebody of jaywalking is to charge him with first-degree murder, and plea-bargain it down to jaywalking.
Plea-bargain
intr.v.
1.To make an agreement in which a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor in return drops more serious charges.

[tbieter]

Defendants are always free to reject the plea-bargain and demand a trial or, as my boss used to say, "go to the mat."

[bobevenson]

Defendants are always free to reject the plea-bargain and demand a trial or, as my boss used to say, "go to the mat."

Prosecutors would rather have innocent defendants plead guilty to a crime than go to trial and be found not guilty. This is not freedom, my friend, it is in fact coercion by scaring a defendant to death with the threat of a more serious charge.

[Blaggard]

In the UK plea bargaining really does not exist, you can't get off any charge by providing information, offering to plead guilty and so on, you can get a smaller sentence, and they might drop other minor charges, by your being co-operative, but your charge will remain the same, so you might lose 1 year off your sentence or whatever and on the other hand you might not, but you will at least be taken as co-operative.

I have to say oddly and against the usual rub of events, I am most definitely with Bob on this one, you shouldn't be able to bargain down your crimes on the basis of your ability to deal. If you did murder you are a murderer, it should be on your record for as long as the statutes exist. You should not be able to plea it down to Jaywalking by any means: you did what you did, live with it, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

[bobevenson]

You can get a smaller sentence, and they might drop other minor charges, by your being co-operative, but your charge will remain the same, so you might lose 1 year off your sentence or whatever and on the other hand you might not, but you will at least be taken as co-operative.

Losing a year off your sentence by being "cooperative" or having other minor charges dropped by being "cooperative" is also government despotism.

[Blaggard]

You can get a smaller sentence, and they might drop other minor charges, by your being co-operative, but your charge will remain the same, so you might lose 1 year off your sentence or whatever and on the other hand you might not, but you will at least be taken as co-operative.

Losing a year off your sentence by being "cooperative" or having other minor charges dropped by being "cooperative" is also government despotism.

Possibly but it does alleviate the tax payers of a trial at times and in the case of minor offences it makes at least some sort of sense. I know what you mean though Bob, and I am completely with you on that. But expediency often triumphs over justice. As I said before crime and time.

And in the case of UK justice at least being co-operative does nothing to your sentence in any serious crime, other than getting you something in return, that you bargain for. For example Fred West got some better treatment in the prison he was in, but he was basically there forever. Definitely think that criminal sentences should only be reduced in exceptional cases, and in cases that are minor though. If I ever take out 24 people with a shotgun I will still hope I get a sentence contingent to my crime, regardless of how many others I implicate in said crime or my willingness to plead guilty.

[bobevenson]

It does alleviate the tax payers of a trial at times and in the case of minor offences it makes at least some sort of sense. I know what you mean though Bob, and I am completely with you on that. But expediency often triumphs over justice. As I said before crime and time.

Justice should not be based on alleviating taxpayers of a trial regardless of the charge.

[Blaggard]

It does alleviate the tax payers of a trial at times and in the case of minor offences it makes at least some sort of sense. I know what you mean though Bob, and I am completely with you on that. But expediency often triumphs over justice. As I said before crime and time.

Justice should not be based on alleviating taxpayers of a trial regardless of the charge.

Again we are in agreement but as I said expediency triumphs over justice.

We are in agreement Bob, perhaps for the first time. That's got to be worth something.

[bobevenson]

It does alleviate the tax payers of a trial at times and in the case of minor offences it makes at least some sort of sense. I know what you mean though Bob, and I am completely with you on that. But expediency often triumphs over justice. As I said before crime and time.

Justice should not be based on alleviating taxpayers of a trial regardless of the charge.

Again we are in agreement but as I said expediency triumphs over justice.

But it shouldn't.

[Blaggard]

But it shouldn't.

I quite agree, it's bs mate. When have you ever seen man kind do the right thing over the most expedient thing..?