How to get people to plead guilty.

[lawtonfogle]

Take minor crime (something many would say wasn't even the original intent of the law being used). Add on major crime that comes with minimum decade+ in jail. Drop the major if they plead guilty to the minor.

Read a recent case where this was used against an 18 year old who was dating a 15 year old. It seems kissing and the such can count as sexual battery. Even though hopefully no jury would convict a 18 year old for kissing a 15 year old who consented to it, the 18 year old probably does not want to risk the minimum decade in jail for the larger charge, so he is likely to plea guilty to the lesser charge even though it requires registration as a sex offender.

I can't wait till they start doing this with other crimes. Reckless driving, speeding, and attempted assault with a deadly weapon (car), but we will drop the last one if you pay the $3000+ ticket for the other two (paying ticket = pleading guilty).



So, anyone got an idea to fix the injustice system?

 

[Tim Myers]

The way I see it, better a lesser conviction than no conviction at all......

 

[OllieFranz]

Take minor crime (something many would say wasn't even the original intent of the law being used). Add on major crime that comes with minimum decade+ in jail. Drop the major if they plead guilty to the minor.

Read a recent case where this was used against an 18 year old who was dating a 15 year old. It seems kissing and the such can count as sexual battery. Even though hopefully no jury would convict a 18 year old for kissing a 15 year old who consented to it, the 18 year old probably does not want to risk the minimum decade in jail for the larger charge, so he is likely to plea guilty to the lesser charge even though it requires registration as a sex offender.

I can't wait till they start doing this with other crimes. Reckless driving, speeding, and attempted assault with a deadly weapon (car), but we will drop the last one if you pay the $3000+ ticket for the other two (paying ticket = pleading guilty).



So, anyone got an idea to fix the injustice system?

Just out of curiosity, what was the more serious charge? (I'm guessing it was probably rape.) And was there any evidence of the more serious crime stronger than his admission that he was dating her?

In that kind of situation, I can say that that sort of threat would be effective used against me, and I would resent it. Except I would resent it more, and hold out longer because of the Megan's list.

 

[Thaeoles]

He should have remembered his Miranda warning and shut up and wait for a lawyer. The Fifth Amendment is there for a reason. Most of this nonsense, with the aid of any lawyer with a brain, would be thrown out by the judge before it would get to trial if there is no evidence the major crime. Most problems come from the accused opening his mouth, regardless of innocence.

 

[lux et lex]

This is why you always get a lawyer. A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The way I see it, better a lesser conviction than no conviction at all......

And you are ok with scaring people, some who may very well be innocent, into pleading guilty? Are you ok with this way of circumventing trial by jury?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Just out of curiosity, what was the more serious charge? (I'm guessing it was probably rape.) And was there any evidence of the more serious crime stronger than his admission that he was dating her?

Sexual assault, not exactly rape. I guess the argument would be proved he kissed her and argue a kiss is sexual.

In that kind of situation, I can say that that sort of threat would be effective used against me, and I would resent it. Except I would resent it more, and hold out longer because of the Megan's list.

By saying it would be effective, you mean you would plea guilty?

My issue here is the bigger problem of prosecutors using big crimes to scare people into pleading guilty to littler ones, even though likely a jury would find them innocent (but no one wants to risk it).

 

[Jade Margery]

I think there are a lot of practices that have evolved in our justice system that need to be re-worked or phased out. Making deals, for instance, really bothers me. Prosecutors will often offer criminals a deal--a lesser charge, less jail time--if they plead out instead of going through with a jury trial. This strikes me as wrong for several reasons. For one thing, people are basically rewarded for giving up their right to a trial by a jury of their peers. On the flip side, if you are innocent and insist on a trial, and there's too much evidence against you or your lawyer just sucks*, you can actually get a much heavier sentence. There is even something of a stigma growing in the courtrooms, that if you want to waste people's time with a trial and you're found guilty, you're more likely to get the maximum sentence. Like, how dare you insist on a jury trial?

Add to that the fact of uneven punishment. Two men commit the same crime, but one cooperates and the other asks for a trial. The first man will get out of prison way ahead of the second, but other than the crime itself what has the second done wrong except ask for something that is his constitutional right? How is that justice?

And then there's the unfairness of drug laws in comparison to other crimes. Even if we are to agree that drugs should be illegal and carry prison sentences for using or selling them, can't we also agree that those prison sentences should not be longer than sentences for rape? And yet across the country we see the opposite in effect thanks to politicians playing up the 'war on drugs' and implementing minimum sentencing policies for victimless crimes.

I feel like the whole system needs an overhaul.



*As is often the case with assigned public defenders, no offense to any in the audience but if you are a good lawyer and don't have a heart of gold, wouldn't you be getting higher-paying clients?

 

[OllieFranz]

Sexual assault, not exactly rape. I guess the argument would be proved he kissed her and argue a kiss is sexual.

Some jurisdictions label it rape, others label it sexual assault. It is the same crime. The crime includes both the action we generally mean by rape when we are not discussing the definition of the crime, and other actions as defined by the jurisdiction's statute. Collectively we call these other actions (especially sex with an under-age partner) "statutory rape" since the rape statute includes them, even though they are not what we generally mean by rape.

By saying it would be effective, you mean you would plea guilty?

I'd like to say no, but that would be a lie. Because of the witch-hunt hysteria that surrounds even an accusation of inappropriate sexually-charged behavior when "children" are involved, I would be neither want to have too much publicity given to legal proceedings nor risk having a felony under that statute (in which also the chance for conviction is higher for the level of evidence than in other crimes -- especially in the under-age provisions) in my "jacket."

My issue here is the bigger problem of prosecutors using big crimes to scare people into pleading guilty to littler ones, even though likely a jury would find them innocent (but no one wants to risk it).

Exactly. My point was just that it's even more effective with hot-button crimes.

It's one thing when there is evidence for all the crimes, but the prosecutor agrees to drop one or recommend concurrent sentences rather than consecutive ones to make a plea, but inflating the charges just to get the defendent to agree to plead guilty to everything except the inflated charge is nothing less than extortion. It's no different from a mobster selling a storekeeper "protection."

 

[lux et lex]

Regarding public defenders...in a lot of states, the Bar Association for the state has a pool of all the attorneys licensed in the state (or all of the firms in the state) and it's sort of a lotto system, you get assigned to a case. Some places have specific public defender offices, but in rural areas that's not common. Just because you have a public defender doesn't mean you have a lousy attorney...but often time attorneys treat those cases with less diligence than they should because they are getting paid at a state rate and have to bear the brunt of a lot of costs themselves...which is difficult for small firms and solo practitioners.

And as for kissing being sexual assault...yes, that's possible and not necessarily unreasonable. Any unwanted touching of a sexual nature can considered sexual assault...

 

[Gabe7]

Everyone is guilty under the law.

 

[OllieFranz]

Everyone is guilty under the law.

You are confusing "The Law" with "the law."

"The Law" is spelled out in the Bible. We are all equally guilty and all equally deserve death under its terms, and our only hope is through the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

"The law" is the statutes passed by governmental jurisdictions. These statutes tend to be more lenient in some areas, and harsher in other areas.

We were discussing the practices of prosecuting attorneys. They are only authorized to prosecute "the law," as it exists in their jurisdictions. They have no authority vis a vis "The Law." In addition, a person can only be convicted in government courts if he admits to the crime or if the prosecutor convinces a jury (or a judge in some cases) with sufficient objective evidence that he is guilty.

If a prosecutor uses unjust tactics to coerce a defendant into confessing to a crime, in order not to have to convince the jury, that is wrong.

We generally agree that the torture techniques of the Spanish Inquisition were wrong. Most people except Bush supporters and those to their right agree that the torture in Gitmo was wrong, too. These are unjust tactics.

Many people say that the tactic under discussion is just allowing the prosecutor the chance to trick the defendant into admitting wrongdoings that everyone in the room knows he committed. But there are many times when the prosecutor knows that he is overstepping the line, and is presenting the defendant with a impossible choice where the only way out is to confess whether he is guilty or not. That's what I object to, because it is also unjust.

 

[Zebra1552]

The way I see it, better a lesser conviction than no conviction at all......

Um, what? Why would you WANT to get in trouble?

 

[Zebra1552]

Re: the OP... get rid of prosecutors and defense attorneys and just go with a jury or something. I dunno. DA's and prosecutors tend to get so encroached with their side that justice is never served and whoever has the most convincing argument wins. Shouldn't we be trying to find the truth in a trial?

 

[solarwave]

Read a recent case where this was used against an 18 year old who was dating a 15 year old. It seems kissing and the such can count as sexual battery.

Only because old men are jealous of what are can't do.

So, anyone got an idea to fix the injustice system?

Shoot the people responsible...... too far?

I don't know. Maybe leaving people of a resonable age to make their own moral decisions rather than morally blind sheep. Bullying is much worse but I never hear of bullys being charged. But no instead lets have a three way love triangle between boy, girl and goverment peeping through the curtains.


Some of the above may be technically wrong, but I would much rather the government worked on stopping real crime (murder, real rape, robbery, assault, etc) rather than personal choice. (Small unproductive rant over).

 

[solarwave]

The way I see it, better a lesser conviction than no conviction at all......

What? What.... and what?

Just charge someone with something, who cares if it is right or just?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Only because old men are jealous of what are can't do.



Shoot the people responsible...... too far?

I don't know. Maybe leaving people of a resonable age to make their own moral decisions rather than morally blind sheep. Bullying is much worse but I never hear of bullys being charged. But no instead lets have a three way love triangle between boy, girl and goverment peeping through the curtains.

While that might work in this case (not really though, as this is all a fight about what is a reasonable age), what happens when this is used surrounding other things? For example, some kid was just playing around with some code and did some unauthorized things on some government website. Charge him with treason but agree to drop it if he pleads guilty to a lesser, but still outrageous, charge?

 

[Martingale]

...

Read a recent case where this was used against an 18 year old who was dating a 15 year old. ...

source? citation? link?

 

[Martingale]

Re: the OP... get rid of prosecutors and defense attorneys and just go with a jury or something. I dunno. DA's and prosecutors tend to get so encroached with their side that justice is never served and whoever has the most convincing argument wins. Shouldn't we be trying to find the truth in a trial?

anglo-american jurisprudence believes that setting adversaries like the PD and DA against each other is the likely way to find out the truth.

 

[Zebra1552]

anglo-american jurisprudence believes that setting adversaries like the PD and DA against each other is the likely way to find out the truth.

Yes, because it's worked SO well.