undefined | Better HN

0 pointshiatus2y ago0 comments

Submitting a plea is part of court procedure, and I'd also point out that the data you shared is for US federal cases, which have a notoriously high rate of conviction which could explain why people are quick to plea out.

> In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%).

So 1669 defendants went to trial, and 1379 were found guilty, roughly 80%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-tha...

0 comments

FireBeyond2y ago

The US is one of the only jurisdictions in the world to use the plea bargain, and it uses it so much more than even the others that do that it’s absurd.

And in most other places where it’s even an option it’s subject to much more rigorous scrutiny and pushback than here.

It will never go away here without a lot of effort, because prosecutors love it because they get to hype their “conviction rates” for re election. There are huge swathes of evidence of people pleading out while factually innocent because they can’t afford the cost (public defenders aren’t incentivized here - you need your own counsel), stress, inconvenience, and beyond.

Plea bargains, as implemented in the US, are a huge system drive by perverse incentives.

giantg22y ago

The data isn't much different in my state where 95%+ of criminal convictions end in a deal.

phpisthebest2y ago

so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this

1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty

2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self

Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality

kevinmchugh2y ago

3. Federal prosecutors are resource-constrained and don't like to lose, so they only prosecute the surest cases.

Imagine you offer a great soccer player a million dollars if he can shoot 50 goals in a row, and he gets to choose the defenders and goalies. He's probably going to choose children to go against him.

phpisthebest2y ago

Well in this context it would be the poor, and people that lack education. People that lack the resources to fight back.

still not something we should be proud of

kevinmchugh2y ago

Or, look at the Sam Bankman-Fried prosecution. The DoJ could've gone after a lot more people, but chose to use them as assets to get SBF, the kingpin. The beneficiaries here are the mid-tier criminals.

robocat2y ago

The Japanese use #1.

99.9% of criminal cases that go to trial in Japan end in a guilty verdict.

So maybe some humans are perfect enough?

phpisthebest2y ago

Unlikely, it more a deference to authority. you can not honestly believe that 99.9% all cases in Japan are decided justly and fairly and there are statically zero false conviction in the system.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

FireBeyond2y ago

The US is one of the only jurisdictions in the world to use the plea bargain, and it uses it so much more than even the others that do that it’s absurd.

And in most other places where it’s even an option it’s subject to much more rigorous scrutiny and pushback than here.

Plea bargains, as implemented in the US, are a huge system drive by perverse incentives.

giantg22y ago

The data isn't much different in my state where 95%+ of criminal convictions end in a deal.

phpisthebest2y ago

so there are 2 conclusions to draw from this

1. the federal law enforcement, and prosecutors are prefect humans that only ever go after the guilty

2. The system is sooo skewed in favor of the government that fighting them is pointless, likely due to immense corruption in the system it self

Since no humans are perfect, I think the stronger case is for #2 to be reality

kevinmchugh2y ago

3. Federal prosecutors are resource-constrained and don't like to lose, so they only prosecute the surest cases.

Imagine you offer a great soccer player a million dollars if he can shoot 50 goals in a row, and he gets to choose the defenders and goalies. He's probably going to choose children to go against him.

phpisthebest2y ago

Well in this context it would be the poor, and people that lack education. People that lack the resources to fight back.

still not something we should be proud of

kevinmchugh2y ago

robocat2y ago

The Japanese use #1.

99.9% of criminal cases that go to trial in Japan end in a guilty verdict.

So maybe some humans are perfect enough?

phpisthebest2y ago

Unlikely, it more a deference to authority. you can not honestly believe that 99.9% all cases in Japan are decided justly and fairly and there are statically zero false conviction in the system.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse