NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you like it or dislike or are you indifferent. Personally I don't like the idea. I think it should be abolished in our law system. I mean, admitting to doing a crime will get you less time? What the crap happened to "You do the crime, you pay the time?". Or whats up with the whole thing where I can turn on my buddy in a case, lets say...in murder, where we both kill someone, but i turn against him, and I get a lesser charge, and lesser punishment. Personally, I think the whole thing is a cancer on the Justice System.

if it helps to solve a case, then i agree with it...

Do you like it or dislike or are you indifferent. Personally I don't like the idea. I think it should be abolished in our law system. I mean, admitting to doing a crime will get you less time? What the crap happened to "You do the crime, you pay the time?". Or whats up with the whole thing where I can turn on my buddy in a case, lets say...in murder, where we both kill someone, but i turn against him, and I get a lesser charge, and lesser punishment. Personally, I think the whole thing is a cancer on the Justice System.

Better to allow a guilty person less time then no time from the case not going through

Do you like it or dislike or are you indifferent. Personally I don't like the idea. I think it should be abolished in our law system. I mean, admitting to doing a crime will get you less time? What the crap happened to "You do the crime, you pay the time?". Or whats up with the whole thing where I can turn on my buddy in a case, lets say...in murder, where we both kill someone, but i turn against him, and I get a lesser charge, and lesser punishment. Personally, I think the whole thing is a cancer on the Justice System.
I think the point is it will get more people to confess, spending up the courts and saving the tax payers some money.

Honestly, I think i would pay more taxes to allow the courts to justly punish someone. As for speeding up the courts, how about throwing out silly civil suits, and divorces. Make a completly different place for divorces, outside of the court system, and just ignore most of the crap in these outrageouss civil suits.

Honestly, I think i would pay more taxes to allow the courts to justly punish someone. As for speeding up the courts, how about throwing out silly civil suits, and divorces. Make a completly different place for divorces, outside of the court system, and just ignore most of the crap in these outrageouss civil suits.I'm all for mandatory arbitration in situations like divorce--get lawyers out of the way and make husbands and wives work their shit out.

But if you want to get rid of plea bargaining, then you have to accept two things: 1) you'll have to get rid of a lot of crimes. You have to legalize a lot of stuff that's currently against the law, because no way are you going to be able to handle the crush of cases that currently hit the legal system. 2) You'll have to accept that you'll never get the person at the top of the crime chain, because there's no incentive for the person at the bottom to roll on him. Plea bargaining is simple game theory.

It is a tool used by prosecutors to have high conviction rates. It's used by career felons to minimise time behind bars when they know a jury would convict. It's used by judges and public defenders to quickly clear backlogs. It's main drawback is when prosecuters use it to terrify innocent defendants into guilty pleas with tales of extreme sentences if they choose to go to trial. I'd say it has it's place but it is well abused by all parties involved.

I'd agree with all of your reforms except throwing out "silly" civil suits.
The only problem with that is, who decides what's "silly"?
The judge? They can already do that to an extent. Anything that they can't usually has enough merit to it so they shouldn't.

Plea bargaining is simple game theory.

of course a major outcome of it is also that people quite frequently take more punishment than they actually deserve because of the threat of facing even more punishment if they go to trial.

If the sentence is not diminished to much I'm for it (although I'm for shortening sentences for most crimes so....)

Do you like it or dislike or are you indifferent. Personally I don't like the idea. I think it should be abolished in our law system. I mean, admitting to doing a crime will get you less time? What the crap happened to "You do the crime, you pay the time?". Or whats up with the whole thing where I can turn on my buddy in a case, lets say...in murder, where we both kill someone, but i turn against him, and I get a lesser charge, and lesser punishment. Personally, I think the whole thing is a cancer on the Justice System.

Well, it shows a willingness to accept the consequences of one's actions which in rehabilitation circles is an excellent start. Also, it saves a considerable amount of time and resources.

Honestly, I think i would pay more taxes to allow the courts to justly punish someone. As for speeding up the courts, how about throwing out silly civil suits, and divorces. Make a completly different place for divorces, outside of the court system, and just ignore most of the crap in these outrageouss civil suits.

Make a completely different place for divorces...you mean like...divorce court?

You ARE aware that civil cases go to an ENTIRELY different place than criminal courts? Even if you got rid of every single civil case, it still wouldn't do a thing to free up criminal court docket, they are two seperate court systems.

Make a completely different place for divorces...you mean like...divorce court?

You ARE aware that civil cases go to an ENTIRELY different place than criminal courts? Even if you got rid of every single civil case, it still wouldn't do a thing to free up criminal court docket, they are two seperate court systems.



I was kinda thinkng that with a reduced ammount of civil trials, that those judges would be able to do criminal trials.

I was kinda thinkng that with a reduced ammount of civil trials, that those judges would be able to do criminal trials.

You realize this is the rough equivalent of saying "if people didn't have so many pets, a lot of vets could be doctors instead".

You do realize that criminal law, and civil law, are WILDLY different areas, and wildly different regimes. Civil judges are civil judges because they spent years being civil attornies, and are familiar with civil law. You can't turn civil judges into criminal judges, they have no experience in criminal law, any more than you can make a vet a doctor overnight.

Do you like it or dislike or are you indifferent. Personally I don't like the idea. I think it should be abolished in our law system. I mean, admitting to doing a crime will get you less time? What the crap happened to "You do the crime, you pay the time?". Or whats up with the whole thing where I can turn on my buddy in a case, lets say...in murder, where we both kill someone, but i turn against him, and I get a lesser charge, and lesser punishment. Personally, I think the whole thing is a cancer on the Justice System.


your incorrect...
it is a mechanism to allow for breaches of conduct by the cops,without them admitting it..which they never would..and the court getting some satisfaction without totally screwing some one.
if their was no plea agreements...lots of innocent people would go to jail,,,period.

the prosecutors know the case is weak,but they dont like to lose,so they offer a plea agreement,so everyone supposedly wins.
they get their "win" and the defendant doesnt do hard time for nothing.
the ldefendants lawyer makes money,the defendant doesnt get screwed,and the prosecutor gets a win,and the cops dont get looked at...shitty system...but it kinda works.

certainly some scumbags get off light,but as the old saying goes..i would rather release 10 guilty men then kill 1 innocent man.

from my own perspective...without going into detail.

i was charged with attempted murder of a cop..aggravated assault on a cop..felony eluding...resisting with violence..and a host of traffic shit(dui,reckless..etc)

did i do any of that...nope...but i was charged with it...100,000.00 bail

i did not stop were they told me to stop...and in a roid rage the cop flipped out...and beat me stupid while cuffed.
they had to take me to the hospital for a broken cheekbone/ribs and internal bleeding.
kinda happens when you get stomped while cuffed.(can i add i hate cops..lol)

long story short...if i did not have money for a lawyer..a good one..i was looking at 5 to 10 years..at the least.

without going into details...it was b.s.

the prosecutor and my lawyer reviewed what happened,the car video from the stop dis appeared...as did the 911 call
my lawyer told me..they will drop it to a disordly person misdeamor and give me a 100.00 fine and i walk away if i plea.

the prosecutor gets his win,the cops get away with beating me stupid...and all i got to do is pay a small fine and 1 year probation...verse,5 to 10 in state prison.

it's a shitty system,especialy if your poor,but plea agreements give the cops an out.
in a perfect world...the cops would have been charged,i could have sued(they made me sign a waivor to not sue..lol)but at that point..i was willing to do ayear instead of 10..ergo the lawyer.
i got probation,if i was poor..i would be in jail now and for the next ten years.

the world aint perfect..never will be.

that was my brush with the "justice system"
i'm pretty confident i am not alone.

my brother and sister are both attornys...so i am not an idiot when it comes to law...

so in a word...unless you live in fairy tale land...plea bargains help innocent people..helped me...and i still had to pay over 10,000.0 in legal fees.

or go sit in jail for 10 years for nothing...once they get you..you better pay...so they can have jobs and porshes.

suck ass system..hell yea...abolish plea's no way.

I'm all for mandatory arbitration in situations like divorce--get lawyers out of the way and make husbands and wives work their shit out.

But if you want to get rid of plea bargaining, then you have to accept two things: 1) you'll have to get rid of a lot of crimes. You have to legalize a lot of stuff that's currently against the law, because no way are you going to be able to handle the crush of cases that currently hit the legal system. 2) You'll have to accept that you'll never get the person at the top of the crime chain, because there's no incentive for the person at the bottom to roll on him. Plea bargaining is simple game theory.


Nazz ain't you goin' to law school?

BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. Makes sense, coming from an LE student.

Although it still enrages me to know that some criminals get out by pleabargaining.

[QUOTE=Secret aj man;11611769]my brother and sister are both attornys...so i am not an idiot when it comes to law...

QUOTE]

This is just curiosity talking, but couldn't you have got one of them to defend you or were they not yet lawyers a the time of the incident?

snip
But doesn't this just serve as an example of why plea bargaining should be abolished? (or at rather vastly overhauled)
Seems to me that in this case (and no doubt many others) PB is used to save the cop's ass.
I wonder whether it's allowing cops to get away with more cause they know they can fall back on it. Getting away with this just makes the cop feel like they can do shit like this again and again. It simply escalates.
Maybe if there hadn't been PB, the cop would have been a lot more professional. The threat of his actions being examined in court might be the incentive necessary to keep him inline.

I'm all for mandatory arbitration in situations like divorce--get lawyers out of the way and make husbands and wives work their shit out.
The NZ model is one of the better ones, imo.
There's a seperate Family Court for everything relating to relationships (divorces, custody etc).
Better yet, if a couple is seeking a divorce/seperation the Family Court offers free counselling sessions to try to solve the problems without having to go to court. This is open to everyone - married, defacto and civil unions.

I think a system which secures convictions is always better than one that lets the guilty go free.

Having said this, punishments should definately be greater, so that pleading guilty doesn't result in adsurd sentences. Take the case of the paedophile who raped a two year old in Britain recently; he got only five and a bit years as his sentence. It wasn't the judges fault; it was worked out using the system:

18 years for original offence;
minus one third for guilty plea = 12 years;
half the time until parole can be considered; 6 years;
minus time already spent on remand in custody; 5 and a bit years.

I would support a system where rather than reducing sentences for good behaviour, they are instead increased for bad behaviour; ie, if you're good, you only serve your original sentence.

I think a system which secures convictions is always better than one that lets the guilty go free.

Having said this, punishments should definately be greater, so that pleading guilty doesn't result in adsurd sentences. Take the case of the paedophile who raped a two year old in Britain recently; he got only five and a bit years as his sentence. It wasn't the judges fault; it was worked out using the system:

18 years for original offence;
minus one third for guilty plea = 12 years;
half the time until parole can be considered; 6 years;
minus time already spent on remand in custody; 5 and a bit years.
Doing a bit of a British Tabloid kneejerk reaction there, aren't you?
Read carefully what you wrote.
He's not getting 5 and a bit.
1. He's already served several months, which should quite rightly be added to his sentence. It's not his fault that the courts are so slow in processing cases.
2. His sentence is for 12 years. Parole can be considered after 6. That doesn't mean he will be out in 6. It just means he can be considered for parole after 6 years. Parole isn't just on behaviour whilst in prison, it's also based on the severity of the crime and the likelihood of reoffending. Given just what you've written, and considering that the large majority of child molesters do reoffend, I'd be extremely surprised if he was paroled first time round.
3. Offering deals like this is to encourage people not only to admit their guilt and save court time, but also to show consideration towards the victims. If this had gone to court, the young girl might have had to testify - which would have been extremely upsetting for her and her family. Offering a reduction in sentence in cases like this can be seen as helping the victims.

Doing a bit of a British Tabloid kneejerk reaction there, aren't you?
Well no; that's exactly what has happened. The best you can offer in response is 'it might not', and then accuse me of an overreaction?

Aye, be fair, mate - raping a 2 year old should not have the possibility of being out in 6 years (total). It's a problem for legislation rather than the courts though, I think.

it depends on the situation, there are some where I think it's fair and good for the city as a whole, but others that are poorly done.

My plea bargain was poorly done, I basically gave them nothing, but got all my jail time knocked off of my sentence and my charges were busted down a few levels from a felony to a misdemeanor........it was nice for me, but really it wasn't the greatest thing ever done by the DA.

When my cousin was killed, a man was plead down but gave them the information they needed to catch the killer, he was convicted of a non-violent crime, did 2 years (instead of the original 10) and her killer was caught and is in prison for life and probably wouldn't be without the testimony of the man.

Well no; that's exactly what has happened. The best you can offer in response is 'it might not', and then accuse me of an overreaction?
Yes, I do accuse you of an over-reaction because it is one. You just ignored everything I wrote and still continue with the OMG!! He's getting out in 5 years!! Tabloid crap when it's plainly not the case.

Plea bargining, in my opinion weakens a case because if one is offered then the person who is accepting the plea bargain will tell the court what the prosecution wants to hear and might not be the truth. Obviously I'm not suggesting the prosectution will make the witness lie under oath but the witness might take it upon himself to do so.

Yes, I do accuse you of an over-reaction because it is one. You just ignored everything I wrote and still continue with the OMG!! He's getting out in 5 years!! Tabloid crap when it's plainly not the case.
I didn't ignore it. I dismissed it as irrelevant.

I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to defend the way the system is set up; I think most people would agree that giving even the possibility of parole to someone like that after just five years is abhorent.

The idea that justice is better served by securing convictions through a guilty plea is a good one; the fact that someone who is caught red handed automatically gets a reduced sentence just by saying 'guilty' is not.

Aye, be fair, mate - raping a 2 year old should not have the possibility of being out in 6 years (total). It's a problem for legislation rather than the courts though, I think.

What difference does it make if he's out after six or twelve or eighteen years? Do you think it's likely that a person will think "Oh, dang, I really want to rape that cute little child, but since I'm facing eighteen years I'd better not. Oh I wish I would only have to do six, because then it would be totally worth it." Or do you think the emotional scars of the child and its parents will diminish if the offender does an extra couple of years?

It seems to me the only fair thing to do is to treat the rapist for the mental illness he almost certainly has, to make sure he will never do it again.

Do you like it or dislike or are you indifferent. Personally I don't like the idea. I think it should be abolished in our law system. I mean, admitting to doing a crime will get you less time? What the crap happened to "You do the crime, you pay the time?". Or whats up with the whole thing where I can turn on my buddy in a case, lets say...in murder, where we both kill someone, but i turn against him, and I get a lesser charge, and lesser punishment. Personally, I think the whole thing is a cancer on the Justice System.

First off, it saves money, in a big way. A trial is supremely expensive, and if a criminal plea bargains, he saves the taxpayer loads of money.

Not only that, but when you cut a deal to name names, it also makes it easier on the system, because the amount of investigation required to bring down the equivalent suspects would also be be astronomically expensive.

Nazz ain't you goin' to law school?

BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. Makes sense, coming from an LE student.

Although it still enrages me to know that some criminals get out by pleabargaining.

Not me. Just interested in the subject. I'm an instructor in the English department of a state university and a writer.