97% of inmates take a plea bargain

[saevel25]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/due-process-dead-staggering-95-inmates-america-received-trial/#X80csDkRvcKyQdyi.99

Quote

“The reality is that almost no one who is imprisoned in America has gotten a trial,” explains award-winning journalist, Chris Hedges, in a recent Truthdig column. “There is rarely an impartial investigation. A staggering 97 percent of all federal cases and 95 percent of all state felony cases are resolved through plea bargaining.” Of those millions who bargained away their right to a trial by accepting plea deals, “significant percentages of them are innocent.”
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/due-process-dead-staggering-95-inmates-america-received-trial/#DG9HgOvXmmcWFRcC.99

What causes this, 

1. Money, court fees
2. It's averson. Though you may never be found guilty. The truth is that if you are found guilty in trial you are highly likely to see the harshest of sentences. 
 

Quote

And if you are poor, because you don’t have any money for adequate legal defense, you will serve sentences that are decades longer than those for equivalent crimes anywhere else in the industrialized world … 

 

[SavvySwede]

Another big contributor is overloaded public defenders.

 

[David in FL]

Or it could simply be that they're guilty and know a good deal when they hear it....

[saevel25]

Just now, David in FL said:

Or it could simply be that they're guilty and know a good deal when they hear it....

 

Quote

In part, such ‘unconditional guilt’ begat the need for The Innocence Project — “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.” Since 1989, there have been 337 DNA-related exonerations with individuals having served a combined total of around 4,606 unjustified years — an average of 14 years, each, before being freed. Of those 337 cases, 31 individuals, who had served over 150 combined years, “pled guilty to crimes they didn’t commit — usually seeking to avoid the potential for a long sentence (or a death sentence),” states The Innocence Project’s website.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/due-process-dead-staggering-95-inmates-america-received-trial/#VZZf87GqjjIkAwut.99

Umm, no (see above) 

[14ledo81]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

Or it could simply be that they're guilty and know a good deal when they hear it....

I would believe this...

[Gunther]

This also shows the fallacy in the legalize-drugs crowd's argument that many are serving time for minor using crimes.  Not true, most pled down from something far more serious.

[SavvySwede]

5 minutes ago, Gunther said:

This also shows the fallacy in the legalize-drugs crowd's argument that many are serving time for minor using crimes.  Not true, most pled down from something far more serious.

The war on drugs made nearly all drug offenses "serious crimes", so that kinda cancels out.

[David in FL]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

Umm, no (see above) 

331 cases out of how many over the last 27 years.  

The VAST majority are guilty, know it, and quite honestly are getting off easier than they should, by taking a plea.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

331 cases out of how many over the last 27 years.  

The VAST majority are guilty, know it, and quite honestly are getting off easier than they should, by taking a plea.

You didn't say vast majority. You said they're guilty. I proved they are not all guilty.

24 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Or it could simply be that they're guilty and know a good deal when they hear it....

 Also, you have to consider are the sentences actually worth the crime and circumstances. Are judges hamstringed because mandatory prison sentences ties their hands when they would not be otherwise? 

Lets say the minimum is 10 years. Lets say a plea bargain can get them 5 years. Why not take 5 years? Come one. The judge is going to give you 10 years. Or they plea bargain down to a charge that gives you 5 years. The mandatory prison sentences and the plea bargain have stacked the deck against defendants to the point they rather say, "screw due process". 

 

[iacas]

Just now, saevel25 said:

You didn't say vast majority. You said they're guilty. I proved they are not all guilty.

Matt, c'mon… He also didn't say "they're ALL guilty."

Just now, saevel25 said:

Lets say the minimum is 10 years. Lets say a plea bargain can get them 5 years. Why not take 5 years? Come one. The judge is going to give you 10 years. Or they plea bargain down to a charge that gives you 5 years. The mandatory prison sentences and the plea bargain have stacked the deck against defendants to the point they rather say, "screw due process".

Again, maybe the vast majority of them say "yay for skipping due process, I'll take less than I deserve or would get from a trial!"

[Gunther]

39 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

The war on drugs made nearly all drug offenses "serious crimes", so that kinda cancels out.

Really not true.  The legalize-drugs crowd promotes that a large pctg of drug-related criminals doing time are dudes who got caught smoking a joint when in reality, that is simply not the case.  Using is not a serious crime unless accompanied with a large cache, which jumps the charge to possession, then further up the chain depending on volume.  Generally folks in prison for possession pled down from something more serious.  This study seems to prove that out.  

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Really not true.  The legalize-drugs crowd promotes that a large pctg of drug-related criminals doing time are dudes who got caught smoking a joint when in reality, that is simply not the case.  Using is not a serious crime unless accompanied with a large cache, which jumps the charge to possession, then further up the chain depending on volume.  Generally folks in prison for possession pled down from something more serious.  This study seems to prove that out.  

Unless you are in Florida

If you have more than 7/10ths of an ounce of Marijuana it's a felony with a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. To put that into perspective, you would need 35 oz to 705 oz in Ohio to get near that 5 year maximum sentencing. That range is for 1-5 years. So I would think the 5 years is for the higher end. Florida is 1000x more penalizing on Marijuana than Ohio. 

Certain drug laws are just stupid really in terms of sentencing. How is jail going to solve someone buying Marijuana? 

 

[Gunther]

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Unless you are in Florida

If you have more than 7/10ths of an ounce of Marijuana it's a felony with a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. To put that into perspective, you would need 35 oz to 705 oz in Ohio to get near that 5 year maximum sentencing. That range is for 1-5 years. So I would think the 5 years is for the higher end. Florida is 1000x more penalizing on Marijuana than Ohio. 

Certain drug laws are just stupid really in terms of sentencing. How is jail going to solve someone buying Marijuana? 

 

I agree with your last statement, using should not be a felony.  

I don't believe judges in FL actually ever max-sentence anyone on that little amount in possession unless there is recidivism involved.  And if they did, it appears 95% would plead down so that sentence would never apply except to more egregious possessors who plead down to 7/10 possession.  It's a telling study.

[Fourputt]

41 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Unless you are in Florida

If you have more than 7/10ths of an ounce of Marijuana it's a felony with a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. To put that into perspective, you would need 35 oz to 705 oz in Ohio to get near that 5 year maximum sentencing. That range is for 1-5 years. So I would think the 5 years is for the higher end. Florida is 1000x more penalizing on Marijuana than Ohio. 

Certain drug laws are just stupid really in terms of sentencing. How is jail going to solve someone buying Marijuana? 

 

What that tells me is that Florida is way out of touch with today's drug sentencing norms, but it doesn't do much to support your basic premise that there is a major injustice happening throughout the prison system.  Most of the people who are incarcerated are there because they did get caught committing a crime, and if they are serving a lesser sentence than they may have deserved, in some ways it speaks to an overcrowded court docket.  Our system of "reasonable doubt" still favors the defendant (particularly if he is indeed innocent) if he chooses to go to trial.  

[Dave2512]

Ever been pulled over for speeding and ultimately issued a fast track ticket to pay a fine for lesser offense? The entire system is setup this way.

Until you get into the habitual offender realm everything has a minimum penalty. People take it because it's cheaper than defending yourself, even if that means missing work for future court dates. 

 

[k-troop]

Agreed that language above "significant percentages are innocent" is not factually supportable.  Just because the innocence project has overturned 337 convictions in nearly 30 years does not mean "significant percentages" of convicted felons are innocent.  10 felony convictions per year overturned out of how many?  10,000?  The burden of and margin of proof in criminal cases is designed to reduce erroneous convictions to the lowest possible level without making convictions impossible.  How many guilty are acquitted (or never prosecuted) due to the state's enormous burden?  It's a balance--not perfect, but struck as closely as is constitutionally possible (arguably).

Further...Some DNA "exonerations" are the result of entire labs being decertified (in full disclosure, some of those were for corruption) and therefore DNA evidence was deemed erroneously admitted, thereby nullifying verdicts.

Finally, Florida has a very, very good historical reason for having tougher drug penalties than the country at large.  South Florida was a freaking war zone with Colombians, Cuban refugees, and their U.S. enablers battling it out in the street for over a decade.  North of 90% of North American drug supply came in through Miami.  It was only through military-like police tactics, augmented by actual military capabilities (sea, air, intel, etc.) that broke the cocaine wars in South Florida.  It's arguable that Florida's laws are overly harsh in today's drug climate, but they're not exactly without reason.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, k-troop said:

Further...Some DNA "exonerations" are the result of entire labs being decertified (in full disclosure, some of those were for corruption) and therefore DNA evidence was deemed erroneously admitted, thereby nullifying verdicts.

Good point. So in those cases people are freed on something more like a technicality, not because they were "proven" innocent.

Yes, @k-troop?

[turtleback]

I dislike the idea of plea bargaining because there is a double whammy.  It can be used to bludgeon an innocent person into pleading guilty of something they never did.  And it can be used to let a guilty person serve less time than they should.

It is an evil.  A necessary evil, alas, but an evil.

IMO