Our society “produces a certain amount of crime” only because legislators have defined a multitude of things as crimes- like narcotics possession, prostitution, etc. IOW, without plea bargains the legislatures would be forced to be a hell of lot pickier about what they criminalized.
And how will overworking the courts change that? The courts don’t legislate. They can’t declare something is now legal because they have too much work. If you want to change the law, put pressure on the people who write the laws not the people who enforce them.
And if, as some people here are claiming, crimes are being created in order to justify the expansion of the legal system, how would making more work for the legal system address this problem? It would actually be the exact thing this supposed conspiracy would want. They could use this overcrowding as proof that the legal system is still too small and needs further expansion.
This might be true, but remember, you don’t get a jury trial for speeding tickets. You get a “hearing” in front of a magistrate or traffic judge. They can assess court costs for fighting the ticket, and you don’t get speedy tail rights for infractions. You could sit in a crowded uncomfortable courtroom for 6 hours waiting for your turn. When you turn comes, the judge looks at the ticket and finds you guilty, because you’re not going to lie and say you weren’t speeding. You’re just making the government prove it. There are very few people who would want to go through that to “clog up the system.” Most people like the system and want it to work better, not worse. Anyway, none if this would effect the drug cases and other non violent crimes that are handled by the county courts.
If the backlog of cases stretched to years, eventually the vast majority of people awaiting trial would be out on bail walking free for an indefinite period. Priority would have to be given to the most notorious public-danger cases. Eventually petty crimes would be de facto unenforced and the justice system would be a sham. At that point even the most hardcore “Law And Order” advocates would have to concede that the system was broken (if only to eliminate the pointless expense of processing people who might never go to trial) and change things.
They’re not expanding the justice system for its own sake, that’s merely the means. The end is the belief that social problems can be solved with the big stick of criminal punishment. Once upon a time people really believed that you could “lock up” all the drug dealers and users; the ever-expanding number of dealers and users meant that the system became ever-more reliant on plea bargains to cope with the flood. Plea bargains currently allow both liberal social engineers and conservative moralists the luxury of thinking that you can change society by enacting criminal penalties.
Incorrect on several points.
First, in many areas traffic trials can have a jury. YMMV depending on location, but you’re assuming things happen the same everywhere based on what happens in your location. They don’t.
Secondly, in those places that don’t allow a jury trial, and are heard by a judge, it is still a trial with the right to introduce evidence, rebuttal evidence, and cross examination of police.
Thirdly, in many areas traffic and ordinance offenses are handled through county circuit courts, not just municipal courts. Clogging up a county court system for any reason is going to affect criminal cases as it is the same pool of judges that hear these cases.
So what happens with plea bargains made as a deal to secure testimony against another?
Some of you are really missing the point of the OP. The question is, what would happen if everybody charged with anything said “fuck you, I want my trial!”, not “how do we make things work better.”
There would be no plea deals and no testifying against others. Everyone tells the prosecution to stuff it and demands a full trial. At least in large metro areas and the federal court system would collapse! They just could not handle the case load. And holding that many people while awaiting trial could not be done with the current facilities. There would have to be encampments set up or massive amounts of potentially dangerous people let out sans bail. There would also have to be massive change of venues to allow less taxed courts hear cases.
I certainly don’t advocate for any of this. I’m just saying it could, theoretically, be done.
Yes, it could theoretically be done. It won’t happen though.
Without testimony against co-conspirators, you wouldn’t even HAVE trials in a lot of cases. They’d just get away with it. shrug
The problem with the US system (and others, to some extent) is the overcharging. Enthusiastic legislators have made more and more things illegal, and enthusiastic DA’s pile on the charges to induce plea bargains. You hear cases of people pleading a felony to a misdemeanor - "If you insist on a trial, we will charge you with all the worst charges and total possible sentence will be a lifetime or two. Plead to a misdemeanor and we’ll give you two years.
This was the case of Aaron Swartz - probably committed suicide due to existing depression, but the charges he faced for connecting his laptop to the university network and programming it to download publicly available data .
This to persuade him to take a plea with a sentence of 6 months. Kind of makes the UK’s 33% look almost compassionate, eh?
I think the simplest fix to the plea-bargain system would be to have the prosecutor state the specific charges and sentence they are asking for. Allow the same sort of discount for a guilty plea as England and Wales - 33%. Then the defence can either take it or demand a trial. No dropping charges, no lesser charges. Then, the sentence guidelines should include something like “punishment in proportion to the damage done to civil order” or some such wording, to prevent ludicrously harsh sentences.
For those who know they are guilty, even 33% is a good deal. (I assume a lot of British felons take the deal?) For those who believe there is a chance of winning, they are not taking a lifetime gamble.
But then, of course, the USA would have to remove all the other second-world restrictions. No more parole for decades. No more silly restrictions after early release. Seriously - who can live without using a computer today? Lifetime registration because your girlfriend was 17 not 18 when you were 19? Plea bargaining is not the only part of the US justice system bereft of common sense. Canada allows inmates to vote - why would the USA ban ex-felons from voting, except racist motives to stop minorities from voting for the other party?
The USA is already seeing the flipside of their policy along the lines the OP is talking about. Easy high conviction rates, due to arm twisting plea bargains and excessive laws, has overflowed the prison system. There have been stories in the last decade about systems forced to release inmates early because the prisons are overcrowded; the cost of maintaining prisons is ballooning, to the point some states are trying to privatize incarceration.(!?) This is my theory why the excessive parole restrictions - easier and cheaper than actual prison… and once you don’t have to pay prison rates, you can keep the ex-con on a short leash for many more years than if you actually had to pay to keep him inside.
“The USA” doesn’t ban felons from voting after the completion of their sentences. A choice few states do. (Which I think is even more of an argument for letting them vote, BTW. The states where lifetime bans are possible are generally not the states that are praised for their good governance.)