• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Curious Cases of Pleading Guilty While Innocent

radcen said:
The Curious Cases of Pleading Guilty While Innocent

http://www.takepart.com/feature/2015/11/20/houston-drug-war-exonerations
Click to expand...

If you don't want to be wrongfully convicted, falsely pleading guilty is probably not a good idea. If a person falsely pleads guilty, they definitely should not be eligible for monetary compensation. And of course, if a person got arrested again, odds are they are a habitual criminal, but just happened not to be guilty of that one offense. Moreover, it is a good thing that the lab only tests guilty cases in their spare time. The cases of those who claim innocence should not be delayed because of the possibility of a false guilty plea.

I do however think, that plea bargaining should be limited to within the scope of a single charge, "plead to X or be charged with Y"" should be illegal.
 
Doesn't surprise me. Pleading Not Guilty to criminal charges and then having to fight through the system is a daunting task, often designed against the accused. Public defenders aren't worth crap; if you can't afford a good lawyer then taking the case to trial can cost thousands. Then there's also the chance that you get the Guilty verdict thrown at you, and instead of a certain couple years, you're looking at a quarter of a lifetime behind bars.

The worst part concerning that is the matter of a truly guilty person; an innocent man may fear the fact that innocent man such as himself do wind up in prison, and sometimes in jail for an unknown amount of time. The rational choice in that circumstance? Plead bargain, lest you lose against a corrupt system. The guilty man though? Picks the plea bargain of course, because he knows he'll get off with the lighter sentence.
 
Eclectic Seeker said:
Doesn't surprise me. Pleading Not Guilty to criminal charges and then having to fight through the system is a daunting task, often designed against the accused. Public defenders aren't worth crap; if you can't afford a good lawyer then taking the case to trial can cost thousands. Then there's also the chance that you get the Guilty verdict thrown at you, and instead of a certain couple years, you're looking at a quarter of a lifetime behind bars.

The worst part concerning that is the matter of a truly guilty person; an innocent man may fear the fact that innocent man such as himself do wind up in prison, and sometimes in jail for an unknown amount of time. The rational choice in that circumstance? Plead bargain, lest you lose against a corrupt system. The guilty man though? Picks the plea bargain of course, because he knows he'll get off with the lighter sentence.
Click to expand...

Welcome back.

You seem to come and go and don't stay very long ever.
 
Eclectic Seeker said:
Thanks for the welcome. I keep forgetting to post around here.
Click to expand...

To reply to your comments, I myself am idealistic and do not believe in pleading to something I did not do.

On the other hand, if I did commit a crime then I would be willing to plead to a lesser included offense if the deal is offered to me.

It angers me when public defenders get people to plead guilty who are not guilty of anything.

But that's just one of the reasons that I did NOT go into Law when the Navy/USMC JAG offered to send me to law school.

Law is a very conflict based profession. I would rather avoid conflict like that and would hate to make it my career.

Some people however love to argue and for them law is perfect as a career.
 
Riveroaks said:
To reply to your comments, I myself am idealistic and do not believe in pleading to something I did not do.

On the other hand, if I did commit a crime then I would be willing to plead to a lesser included offense if the deal is offered to me.

It angers me when public defenders get people to plead guilty who are not guilty of anything.

But that's just one of the reasons that I did NOT go into Law when the Navy/USMC JAG offered to send me to law school.

Law is a very conflict based profession. I would rather avoid conflict like that and would hate to make it my career.

Some people however love to argue and for them law is perfect as a career.
Click to expand...

I used to be a lot more idealistic myself a few years back, but I've grown more jaded over time. However at heart I would sooner prefer to see things the way they should be, not just the way they are.

The whole justice system is in need of major reform. Currently there's too many flaws and it's hurting the lives of many individuals. One I idea that I think should be implemented is to limit the incentive for taking plea bargains in the first place; reducing the jailing of accused people who aren't a flight risk or potential danger to others; or placing a higher standard among public defense attorneys so that the accused has a better chance at their trial. Those are just a couple of ideas though, as there are as many potential solutions as there are problems.

I agree that law is a very conflict based profession. But all matters involving human society and social relations tend to be nuanced and complicated to a degree, and much like debating, there isn't always a clear or reasonable answer for things. I myself am not sure if I could ever feel comfortable in such a troublesome career setting, knowing full well that the freedom and justice of someones life rests solely in my hands.
 
Eclectic Seeker said:
Doesn't surprise me. Pleading Not Guilty to criminal charges and then having to fight through the system is a daunting task, often designed against the accused. Public defenders aren't worth crap; if you can't afford a good lawyer then taking the case to trial can cost thousands. Then there's also the chance that you get the Guilty verdict thrown at you, and instead of a certain couple years, you're looking at a quarter of a lifetime behind bars.

The worst part concerning that is the matter of a truly guilty person; an innocent man may fear the fact that innocent man such as himself do wind up in prison, and sometimes in jail for an unknown amount of time. The rational choice in that circumstance? Plead bargain, lest you lose against a corrupt system. The guilty man though? Picks the plea bargain of course, because he knows he'll get off with the lighter sentence.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're saying that plea bargains serve neither the innocent or the guilty properly. They only serve the system.

I can't disagree with that.
 
Riveroaks said:
To reply to your comments, I myself am idealistic and do not believe in pleading to something I did not do.

On the other hand, if I did commit a crime then I would be willing to plead to a lesser included offense if the deal is offered to me.

It angers me when public defenders get people to plead guilty who are not guilty of anything.

But that's just one of the reasons that I did NOT go into Law when the Navy/USMC JAG offered to send me to law school.

Law is a very conflict based profession. I would rather avoid conflict like that and would hate to make it my career.

Some people however love to argue and for them law is perfect as a career.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I wish I had gone into law so that I could work for some type of innocence project and work for people who got shafted.
 
Eclectic Seeker said:
I used to be a lot more idealistic myself a few years back, but I've grown more jaded over time. However at heart I would sooner prefer to see things the way they should be, not just the way they are.

The whole justice system is in need of major reform. Currently there's too many flaws and it's hurting the lives of many individuals. One I idea that I think should be implemented is to limit the incentive for taking plea bargains in the first place; reducing the jailing of accused people who aren't a flight risk or potential danger to others; or placing a higher standard among public defense attorneys so that the accused has a better chance at their trial. Those are just a couple of ideas though, as there are as many potential solutions as there are problems.

I agree that law is a very conflict based profession. But all matters involving human society and social relations tend to be nuanced and complicated to a degree, and much like debating, there isn't always a clear or reasonable answer for things. I myself am not sure if I could ever feel comfortable in such a troublesome career setting, knowing full well that the freedom and justice of someones life rests solely in my hands.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. I like to think that if I were ever innocent and accused of a crime that I would fight the good fight, but... that's easy to say when you've never actually been faced with a choice of 2 years or 20. And even for an innocent person the deck is seriously stacked against you.
 
Paleocon said:
If you don't want to be wrongfully convicted, falsely pleading guilty is probably not a good idea. If a person falsely pleads guilty, they definitely should not be eligible for monetary compensation. And of course, if a person got arrested again, odds are they are a habitual criminal, but just happened not to be guilty of that one offense. Moreover, it is a good thing that the lab only tests guilty cases in their spare time. The cases of those who claim innocence should not be delayed because of the possibility of a false guilty plea.

I do however think, that plea bargaining should be limited to within the scope of a single charge, "plead to X or be charged with Y"" should be illegal.
Click to expand...

The system is designed to get people to plea bargain. The justice system isn't about administering justice at this level. It's really just a huge engine for processing plea bargains.
 
Riveroaks said:
To reply to your comments, I myself am idealistic and do not believe in pleading to something I did not do.

On the other hand, if I did commit a crime then I would be willing to plead to a lesser included offense if the deal is offered to me.

It angers me when public defenders get people to plead guilty who are not guilty of anything.

But that's just one of the reasons that I did NOT go into Law when the Navy/USMC JAG offered to send me to law school.

Law is a very conflict based profession. I would rather avoid conflict like that and would hate to make it my career.

Some people however love to argue and for them law is perfect as a career.
Click to expand...


DA: You've been charged with 1st degree robbery. If convicted you can spend up to 25 years in jail. We're offering you a plea. Accept 3rd degree robbery and you'll do a year in jail plus probation.

If offered that and knowing that fighting the robbery charge in court will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and you might still be convicted what would you do?
 
radcen said:
Sometimes I wish I had gone into law so that I could work for some type of innocence project and work for people who got shafted.
Click to expand...

I know a guy who does just that. He went to Harvard, passed the NY and Florida bar exams, went to work for a law firm and hated it. Became an IT guy and works as a lawyer for poor people pro bono. He's very happy with his life.
 
Crovax said:
Reality is rigged against stupid people, that's just a fact
Click to expand...

As much as I do see that minor offenses can be rigged against average people ($200 court fine or $105 ticket).
 
Gaius46 said:
The system is designed to get people to plea bargain. The justice system isn't about administering justice at this level. It's really just a huge engine for processing plea bargains.
Click to expand...

The point being?
 
Paleocon said:
The point being?
Click to expand...

The point being that the last thing the system wants is trials. Trails take time and cost money. If we had trials for every case that was plea bargained the system would stop working.

According to the NY Times 97% of Federal and 94% of State cases are plea bargained. A prime reason for that is because prosecutors overcharge and raise the specter of very long stretches in jail as opposed to a short sentence from a plea bargain.

The system does not want trials and does everything it can - some of it blatantly unconstitutional - to keep trials from happening. ( See http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/how-nassau-county-courts-screw-the-poor/4018 for an example)
 
Gaius46 said:
The point being that the last thing the system wants is trials. Trails take time and cost money. If we had trials for every case that was plea bargained the system would stop working.

According to the NY Times 97% of Federal and 94% of State cases are plea bargained. A prime reason for that is because prosecutors overcharge and raise the specter of very long stretches in jail as opposed to a short sentence from a plea bargain.

The system does not want trials and does everything it can - some of it blatantly unconstitutional - to keep trials from happening. ( See http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/how-nassau-county-courts-screw-the-poor/4018 for an example)
Click to expand...

Which does not change the fact that if you plead guilty to a crime you know you're provably innocent of, it's your own fault.
 
Gaius46 said:
Right. Blame the victim.
Click to expand...

And now you've reduced yourself to sloganeering. Good job.

And yes, when someone willfully and idiotically brings misfortune on themselves, I will find them responsible for it.
 
Paleocon said:
If you don't want to be wrongfully convicted, falsely pleading guilty is probably not a good idea. If a person falsely pleads guilty, they definitely should not be eligible for monetary compensation. And of course, if a person got arrested again, odds are they are a habitual criminal, but just happened not to be guilty of that one offense. Moreover, it is a good thing that the lab only tests guilty cases in their spare time. The cases of those who claim innocence should not be delayed because of the possibility of a false guilty plea.

I do however think, that plea bargaining should be limited to within the scope of a single charge, "plead to X or be charged with Y"" should be illegal.
Click to expand...

I almost agree with you but would take that a big step forward - eliminate the charge with A and yet convict on a "lesser included offense" of Z once the case goes to trial. That seems too close to being double jeopardy - if the charge is A then that alone should be tried with no option to later alter, reduce or modify that charge.

Especially when that charge involves a "hate crime" or a specific requirement to show (prove) prior intent, e.g. first degree murder. It seems far too often that one is intentionally overcharged in order to force a plea deal but the person charged is not given the option to call the state's bluff and demand a trial on only that charge.

It boils down to if the person feels that they may have done anything wrong then taking (making?) a plea deal is likely far better (in terms of the sentencing outcome) than if that same "deal" (modified or reduced charge) were to be reached by the court's "modified" verdict and letting the judge decide the sentence later. This is often called the "trial penalty".

Plea Bargaining legal definition of Plea Bargaining
 
Paleocon said:
And now you've reduced yourself to sloganeering. Good job.

And yes, when someone willfully and idiotically brings misfortune on themselves, I will find them responsible for it.
Click to expand...

What you call idiotic I'd call in many cases a calculation designed to minimize damage.

Faced with a government with effectively limitless resources, potentially ruinous legal bills and the prospect of spending significantly longer time in jail how would you react?

On the other hand if you're poor and can't afford bail you may sit it jail for months awaiting trial and the prospect of spending even more time in jail against pleading immediately and going home.

The link I provided is but one example of how the legal system by design forces people to plea bargain. Good for you if you think you have the moral courage to stand up to that pressure. Me? Given the choice of a year in jail against the potential of 5 to 25 plus the certainty of having to sell my house and put my wife on the street to pay for a lawyer? I'm not so sure.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I almost agree with you but would take that a big step forward - eliminate the charge with A and yet convict on a "lesser included offense" of Z once the case goes to trial. That seems too close to being double jeopardy - if the charge is A then that alone should be tried with no option to later alter, reduce or modify that charge.

Especially when that charge involves a "hate crime" or a specific requirement to show (prove) prior intent, e.g. first degree murder. It seems far too often that one is intentionally overcharged in order to force a plea deal but the person charged is not given the option to call the state's bluff and demand a trial on only that charge.

It boils down to if the person feels that they may have done anything wrong then taking (making?) a plea deal is likely far better (in terms of the sentencing outcome) than if that same "deal" (modified or reduced charge) were to be reached by the court's "modified" verdict and letting the judge decide the sentence later. This is often called the "trial penalty".

Plea Bargaining legal definition of Plea Bargaining
Click to expand...

The problem is, there could arise new evidence which would justify a mitigation of the charges. And when it comes to lesser included charges, usually it's the defense that wants to have lesser included charges, because jurors might prefer to convict on an unsupported charge rather than acquit someone who's obviously guilty of something. While I agree that they shouldn't be able to drop the higher charges in exchange for a plea to the lesser, I don't think the court should be deprived of the ability to convict on the lesser at trial.

Gaius46 said:
What you call idiotic I'd call in many cases a calculation designed to minimize damage.

Faced with a government with effectively limitless resources, potentially ruinous legal bills and the prospect of spending significantly longer time in jail how would you react?

On the other hand if you're poor and can't afford bail you may sit it jail for months awaiting trial and the prospect of spending even more time in jail against pleading immediately and going home.

The link I provided is but one example of how the legal system by design forces people to plea bargain. Good for you if you think you have the moral courage to stand up to that pressure. Me? Given the choice of a year in jail against the potential of 5 to 25 plus the certainty of having to sell my house and put my wife on the street to pay for a lawyer? I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

If you are, in fact, provably innocent, and know this, then there is no possibility of a long prison stint. In the cases the OP discusses, you don't even need a lawyer, just wait for the lab results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom