Prisoners plead not guilty just to get some time spent in court. With some time spent in a truck and a different cell as an added bonus. If you spend 23 hours a day locked in your bathroom, time spent locked in the back of a truck is as good as a holiday.
You mean, in the distinction between legal strictures and other more philosophical kinds, like moral ones?
Forcing the state to engage in due process before being permitted to administer a punishment is a moral choice, even if it is also a self-serving one for other reasons.
It depends on what you think the term “morals” encompasses. If you think it means “whatever is best for humanity”, then you can reason yourself to saving the state the pointless trial. If you think it means “whatever seems correct according to these ad-hoc rules made by some smart-sounding people that allow me to get out of doing whatever is best for humanity”, then maybe not. That there are at least some people who have the first set of morals should be fairly evident, and as such make the rest of the population look like unethical assholes. The only real difference between moral thought patterns should be how you determine what is best for humanity, not whether that should be your main concern.
I believe that rigorously enforcing due process is good for humanity, even in such cases.
Humanity should not expect that punishing people should be easy and humanity should take satisfaction in not taking short cuts.
Humanity is benefited by having to meticulously follow the rules to protect the rights of individuals.
Humanity is benefited when its officials are practiced in meticulously following the rules.
(And further remember that even if a defendant has pleaded guilty, a court may still find that the charge has not been adequately proven and acquit, so truly, he is not guilty until a court finds him so through exercise of due process.)
The one and only time I have been notified I was in a jury pool (since jury trials in Canada appear to be very rare) A friend connected to the legal system mentioned that what was happening was the defendant was up on a slew of serious charges, going back over quite a few years. He (his lawyers) did not like what was being offered, and so they played their trump card - “fine, take it to trial, if we’re not going to do any worse at trial.” Sure enough, after messing up any vacation or travel plans for two months, I was notified a month before the jury pool time that my presence was no longer required. I assume the prosecutor gave in.
Of course, sometimes the defendant is just plain stubborn. Or… Paul Bernardo is an interesting case. After a series of rapes in Scarborough, suburban Toronto, he moved to another town where he and his wife kidnapped two girls in succession and murdered them. He was caught not long after his victim’s body parts encased in concrete showed up when a drought lowered the water level in a nearby lake.
His wife played the “battered wife only following orders” card, and cut a deal with the prosecutors. it included the rare proviso that the deal could not be talked about in Canadian media, since we have no free speech. She got 10 years. (apparently she’s out, married, and living happily on some Caribbean island under an assumed name)
he insisted on a full trial to argue that his wife was as much the instigator as he was, and presented evidence to that effect (including home movies of the sexual assaults). He’s still a monster, but he made a pretty good case that she was too, rather than go quietly.
So what? seriously, the court system is set up to deal with people who are charged with offences. Cops, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges all get paid to do just this: to bring charges to court and then to try the cases. That’s their job. It’s not an inconvenience, but their duty. If a cop, lawyer or judge feels inconvenienced by running a trial, they’re in the wrong line of work.
Sure. But one obviously guilty individual’s plea does not change what is required of humanity. It just saves some time and money that can be used to try defendants who have real cases.
Having to carry out the practice of due process is in itself a benefit each and every time, regardless of who the defendant is. It is not just an expenditure of money.
This suggests that plea bargains are bad for society under almost any circumstances.
In what way is it a benefit? It’s not as though we’re going to run out of not guilty pleaders to try.
because if we let the system arbitrarily decide who is “too obviously guilty to plead not guilty” we then open the door to let the system erode a bunch of other rights. “Well, maybe that search wasn’t exactly legal, but you caught the right guy so we’ll wink at it.”
Sometimes the slope is actually slippery.
I refer you back to the beginning of this line of debate, where it was made clear that we were talking about a moral obligation rather than a legal one.
There is no dispute that even a clearly factually guilty person cannot have a legal obligation to plead guilty.
In my experience, a defendant who sits through a fair trial and actually comes face to face with the evidence against him learns a little something about himself and the “system.” The guys who plead guilty sometimes maintain the pretense of getting a raw deal, etc. I think it’s helpful for a defendant to get to the point where he can say “Yeah, I did it and they could prove it, and that’s why I’m off to prison.” I had one client who asked me to thank the prosecutor and judge after his trial, for conducting themselves so professionally. He was surprised about how the process actually played out fairly.
While many defendants end up being convicted at trial, I don’t see the time and effort as a waste.
But that goes back to my point: there will still be plenty of trials even if those whose guilt is clear plead guilty.
If you cause an injury (either literally or in the broader sense) then you most certainly DO have a responsibility to society to fix the damage you caused. If admitting this responsibility is the first step, then you must do so. That’s the social contract, and if you don’t like it please leave so those of us who DO want to participate in human civilization can do so. (FWIW, this is why I think the social contract should be implemented literally)
That said, you are correct in that they do not have a legal duty to do so because the state acknowledges the possibility that they may be innocent and concedes that forcing someone to plead guilty would be injurious to the goals of justice.
I’d also add another COA that I haven’t seen mentioned yet: Often, a lawyer will recommend the defendant plead not guilty because they believe they can whittle it down to a lesser offense. For example, a person who is charged with a homicide might plead NG if the lawyer thinks the state can only prove manslaughter.
You think these are the only people involved in the process? All of those man-hours are being wasted when they could be put to use somewhere else. A cop that shows up to testify against someone is a cop that is NOT out on the street solving new crimes. A prosecutor who devotes his time to your case is NOT working hard on a different (perhaps more difficult) case. The jurors who have to show up have been yanked out of their jobs, get paid a pittance, and sometimes suffer financially and professionally if the trial goes on too long.
On top of that, taking time out to do this case also means other cases get delayed, which means more money gets spent on housing and feeding the other prisoners while they wait their turn. Over time, higher case volume requires more employees to manage, which means the city has to hire more cops, guards, prosecutors, and judges instead of spending that money on schools and hospitals. And of course, all of this money is coming out of our taxes, which means me and you are the ones getting screwed in the end.
So yes, putting on a trial does use up resources that could be better spent somewhere else, even if each individual cop, judge, and lawyer gets paid the same either way.
The post he was responding to was complaining about the inconvenience to court staff, not the broader costs.
Seriously? Where are the written terms of this contract, that I might agree with and sign? And what does society do with me if I decide that I don’t agree with the terms?
Being civilized means you have the moral duty to administer due process and do it without wishing you didn’t have to, to do it with pleasure and pride.