We will need to disagree on that. In my mind, the primary purpose of the justice system is, well, justice. Ensuring that everyone has a fair shake in this life.
Punishment is a tool that justice uses, mostly as a deterrent to future evildoers, but the ends should be to create a just and fair society. Punishment is not an ends of its own.
If two people commit the same crime, and one is punished for that crime, and when the punishment is over, commits another crime, is that preferable to someone commiting a crime, receives rehabilitation, and does not commit another crime?
I get that if you are the victim of a crime, you will want revenge upon the person who harmed you. And that is how people work. Someone hurts us, we hurt 'em back, even if that actually makes the situation worse.
Which is why, instead of a vigilante system where victims of crime get revenge, we have a system that is supposed to give justice.
I don’t think there’s anything structural that incentivizes overcharging. The decision to measure the quality of a prosecutor by how many people they lock up and for how long is not inherent in the system. You could just as easily measure their performance based on the levels of crime or victim satisfaction.
We’ve had the same structures for centuries, but this problem is only a few decades old. It’s primarily cultural, not structural. We invented this “tough on crime” idea. Now we have to deconstruct it. And until we deconstruct it, I doubt any structural change will make a difference. The act of prosecuting and judging is inherently discretionary. You cannot squeeze out enough discretion to overcome the cultural problem.
Punishment means that there should be penalties associated with certain behaviors. Even hypothetically if we could say a person would never ever engage in those behaviors again, I would say that they should still be punished for what they have done. A rehabilitation focused justice system would be forward looking only and if there was certainty that those actions would not ever happen again, it would be done.
Punishment is closely tied to deterrence, but there can be no deterrence without the promise of punishment.
That’s how I was using the term structural, but that could be the wrong way to use it. I mean, the system where prosecutorial statistics about convictions, incarceration, etc. is what I was referring to about structural. I think you’re right that cultural is a more accurate descriptor. I do think the structures in place that establish these sentencing guidelines, provide for large amounts of discretion, etc. are structural and contributory to the problem of widely divergent outcomes for similar circumstances.
Right, as I said, using punishment as a means of deterrence, to lower the chances of someone committing a crime, makes sense.
But, in the context of this thread, it doesn’t, as the punishment for the crime is extremely variable, and tacks on punishment for exercising your rights guaranteed by the constitution.
The threat of going to jail is only a very small part in why I do not participate in criminal activity. The fact that I have options to lead a relatively prosperous life without breaking the law being the biggest deterrent. I could certainly see a situation where I have no legal alternatives to poverty, in which case, illegal alternatives to poverty start looking more appealing.
Punishment is not a deterrent to people who are being punished every day by their existence.
So, punishment isn’t what keeps productive members of society from commiting crimes, and it is not enough to prevent those who are not able to productively participate in society from commiting crimes. It has a small role to play, but it should take last place to things that actually lower crime and increase the productive participation in society.
The only ones who benefit from punishment really are people who have not gotten themselves under the criminal justice system can look at those who have, and feel good about the idea people are being punished, as if that somehow makes anyone whole.
Got it. Yeah, I think that’s the big change that needs to be made. And it is slowly happening.
Discretion (by both police and prosecutors) is definitely the mechanism by which we get divergent outcomes. What I’m skeptical of is that we can meaningfully reduce that discretion. We want and cannot eliminate the use of discretion in deciding whether to charge every technical instance of a crime, and we want and cannot eliminate discretion about what punishment is merited by the facts of a particular crime. We can do some things at the margins, but the core discretion is going to remain unless we really radically alter our system into something not before seen in the world of criminal justice. And if we’re going to do that, we should do this.
We have a grand jury system (which itself is borked) but I don’t see why we couldn’t modify it a bit.
Have the prosecutor and defense attorney submit the basics of the case as it stands now (prosecutor already does this to the grand jury so adding the defense side would be new). Maybe sanitize it of names. Just Person-A, Person-B and so on in order to avoid discrimination.
This revamped grand jury could return not only whether they think the case should proceed (as they already do) but also outline the parameters of a plea bargain, if any, that might be offered. There would presumably be guidelines they could use to make that determination.
I would also suggest that the DA must submit ALL charges to be brought in one go. No going back and adding charges for the same crime after the initial charges were brought (as it is they will sometimes add more charges if the accused dares to reject an offered plea bargain…don’t like the five year plea try a crime with a life sentence). Heck, I’d make that rule today. Sort of stopping a kind of double jeopardy of accusations. You level all the charges you can for a given crime and that is it. If you need to add more down the road it should require a judge to agree something new that could not have been known came forward at a later date.
The plea deals usually involve dropping charges or recommending a lighter sentence. There are cases where the prosecution has evidence of additional charges and threatens to bring them. I’m not sure that’s any more problematic than the traditional type of deal. There’s not much practical difference between “plead guilty and I’ll drop some charges” and “I’ll add some charges if you don’t plead guilty.”
I don’t believe a defendant is compelled to testify before a grand jury. And wouldn’t a judge have to rule on which elements of the case are admissible?
So the grand jury decides if there is probable cause to bring the defendant to trial, as well as what he should be allowed to plead to if he is guilty? Doesn’t that kind of work against the presumption of innocence?
True, perhaps, but you have to look at it from the macro-perspective as well, not just the individual micro-perspective.
If 95% of the people who get charged with Grand Theft Elephant plead out to Petty Theft Elephant, and get 1 year, while only those who plead not guilty get tried on charges of Grand Theft Elephant and get 5 years if convicted, is it really the case that the ones who exercise their right to a trial aren’t being punished with a heavier sentence than those who waive that constitutional right?
And if the legislators, prosecutors and attorney general all know that 95% of those who are charged with Grand Theft Elephant end up getting 1 year, is it really the case that society says the punishment for Grand Theft Elephant should be 5 years?
Apologies if this has already been asked and answered, but, why would anyone ever plead guilty to anything if there were no plea bargains? Wouldn’t this make our criminal justice system orders of magnitude more expensive if every time anyone was charged with any crime it had to go to trial? Even if the person was caught red handed and admits they did it, why would they plead guilty if they knew it was a choice between a guaranteed sentence, or a possibility of that same sentence or getting off scott free?
Also wouldn’t we all have to do a lot more jury duty?
Yes, in cases I handled where the prosecutor said “no deals” we generally went to trial. (I even won one of those!). Some defendants don’t want a trial, and will plead guilty, deal or no deal. Not too many though.
I can see plea deals giving you some sort of reward to encourage people to not take up the court’s system with cases where they are very obviously guilty. But those plea deals should only be getting at most 25% or so off of the punishment, not 80-90%.
I still wouldn’t really like that system, but it would be much fairer than what we have now.
I only practiced criminal law in one state, but I seriously doubt defendants *routinely *get 80 to 90% shorter sentences by pleading guilty. In cases where that happens (In my experience), it’s because the prosecutor’s case is falling apart, not just as an incentive to plead guilty.
In cases where defendants are “obviously guilty,” 25% shorter sentence would be about the most I would expect. Maybe it’s different in places like NYC or Chicago, where the courts must be much more congested.
If a prosecutor feels that they will have a difficult time proving their case and there is a significant chance the defendant will be acquitted at trial, but he/she can get the defendant to agree to a plea deal for 10% of the maximum sentence, isn’t that better then them going to trial and potentially getting 0% of the sentence?
I guess I’m just not convinced that the concept of the plea bargain is a great injustice. I think there are valid uses for it. I’m not a lawyer, nor have I ever been involved in the criminal justice system in any way, so most of my understanding of these things comes from TV I’ll admit.
I’ve never had the need to experience things first hand, I’m just going by what is in this thread.
And if the reason that the prosecutor’s case is difficult to prove is because there is no evidence that the accused did it, and may even be due to the fact that the accused is innocent of wrongdoing?
Let’s say they have DNA evidence that is rock solid that the defendant is guilty, however, for some reason that was thrown out due to process or something. Aside from that they have circumstantial evidence and unreliable witness testimony. Now say this is a heinous child murder charge. Just let the guy go? Or try to at least get him to plead guilty so he is off the streets for some time? I mean we can do this hypothetical stuff all day, but I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere.
I’m just not seeing how plea bargains are this big injustice. Not saying anyone is wrong, just that I don’t find the arguments put forth thus far very convincing that we need to fundamentally change our justice system.
As mentioned though, I am very far from fully educated on this topic.
So, a situation where they have no evidence to present to the jury, but they “know” that the defendant is guilty, and try to get him to plead that way, so that they don’t have to show that they have nothing.
I don’t that that that justifies plea deals, IMHO.
Okay, how about this. An 18 year old goes on a burglary spree (a crime I personally find particularly abhorrent). He commits 25 burglaries in 2 months. They catch him. He’s looking at 20 years if they charge him with everything. But, he’s non violent and has his whole life in front of him. How about you let him plead to 3 or 4, and get a 2 year sentence? If he’s being a jerk, and wants a fight it, he’s risking the 20 years. Fair, or not?