> Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence
Because of 5th Amendment issues.
If there's a penalty associated with talking about evidence, then they'll just plead the 5th Amendment. Only with total immunity can you bypass the 5th Amendment and _FORCE_ them to talk.
Sorry, I don't see how that follows. A guarantee that "you will only get sentenced for X years regardless of what you admit" does not seem meaningfully different if X is zero or one.
edit: not meaningfully different with respect to the 5th, obviously it's meaningfully different with respect to "justice", as getting off scott free rubs many people the wrng way.
I don't understand. Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour. That is an admission, and admission is the whole reason immunity is granted.
Edit: the point being that the limit on their sentence is contingent on not pleading the 5th.
What does the 5th Amendment have to do with offering someone a plea deal on some count in return for testimony, and immunity for other things that come up in that testimony?
