97% of inmates take a plea bargain

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

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

I'm not a big fan, but the statistics show most who accept a plea deal are guilty of something.  As for the guilty serving less time than they should, it is indicative that we don't have enough prisons to house all the criminals, so compromises become attractive for both sides.  

[Golfingdad]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

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

Why do you say stuff like this?  Matt didn't say that David said that they're "all" guilty.  He quoted him correctly.  Further, I think he interpreted him exactly correctly as well.  If Matt pointed out that some are not guilty then why would David need to bother to respond at all if he didn't mean that they were all guilty?

This is the point in the argument where if it was flipped around, you would say "cool it" or "knock it off" to the other person.  Just sayin'

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Why do you say stuff like this? Matt didn't say that David said that they're "all" guilty.  He quoted him correctly.  Further, I think he interpreted him exactly correctly as well.  If Matt pointed out that some are not guilty then why would David need to bother to respond at all if he didn't mean that they were all guilty?

This is the point in the argument where if it was flipped around, you would say "cool it" or "knock it off" to the other person.  Just sayin'

Because Matt's (original) response was rude, and I generally hate arguments that are "won" on technicalities, particularly when they're implied or inferred. Matt did say "I proved that they're not all guilty." But nobody had refuted that they were ALL guilty. He introduced the "all," not David. Unlike you (and possibly Matt), I do not think David was saying "all" - I think he was saying generally they take deals because they're guilty. See, I said "they're guilty" there too, just as he did. If he wanted to say "all" I suspect he would have said it. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't be so dumb as to think that ALL are guilty, particularly given evidence just above that "significant percentages of them are innocent."

@David in FL said "maybe it's because they're guilty" and @saevel25 responded with "Uhmmmm, no" and bolded parts where  a whopping (sarcastic) 337 convictions were overturned. Some, as I now understand it, on technicalities, and not truly exonerative evidence.

You don't like @David in FL, so I think you're letting your personal biases affect how you see things here. And if I goofed up and misread some things and David did mean all, then, okay, I'm a human being who goofed. I hardly think saying "Matt, c'mon" is a terrible thing to say to someone.

Now, please, back to the topic.

[k-troop]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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

Yes, @k-troop?

Not really a technicality in that some clearly relevant evidence was excluded due to a defective warrant or rights advisement or something.  More like this: Imagine a murder/rape case we'll call People v. Barney.  DNA evidence may have been collected in the investigation, analyzed at a lab, concluded to be relevant, and used at trial.  Conviction.  Later, the lab is decertified.  (Houston TX DNA lab was decertified some time ago because of manipulation of test results, which I can inadequately explain in a spoiler window below.)  The relevant DNA in Barney's case was obtained from semen found in a relevant location; it's assumed the murdered victim was also raped by the murderer, so the semen must belong to the murderer.  The lab may have been decertified for proven manipulation of samples in an unrelated case, but that calls into question all of the DNA results from that lab during a relevant period.  Thus, Barney's DNA is deemed "inadmissable" at his trial post-conviction.  Because it was in fact admitted, the court now must review whether the conviction would stand beyond a reasonable doubt without the DNA, standing only on the other evidence the jury considered.  Nearly impossible, as DNA evidence is considered so compelling that no appellate court would conclude that the erroneously admitted DNA didn't affect the verdict.

Or

Conviction.  The results of the DNA test in Barney's case is deemed to have been manipulated and thus is deemed inadmissible post-conviction.  Court again has to determine whether the conviction would have absolutely followed without the DNA, which they never will (particularly in this case where there's actual misconduct not just implied bias).

Note in both of the above examples there could be other evidence that clearly points to guilt, but because the trial is tainted by the DNA evidence the conviction is overturned.  This is still an "exoneration" although innocence has not been proven on the facts.

Some DNA exonerations actually involve DNA evidence that proves someone else did it.  These are quite rare.  There was a case in Texas where a guy confessed dozens of times and was actually exonerated by DNA after serving like 12 years. What caused the individual to confess multiple times is subject only to speculation, but again such cases are so rare that while interesting, they're hardly a reason to make significant structural changes to the judicial system.

49 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Why do you say stuff like this?  Matt didn't say that David said that they're "all" guilty.  He quoted him correctly.  Further, I think he interpreted him exactly correctly as well.  If Matt pointed out that some are not guilty then why would David need to bother to respond at all if he didn't mean that they were all guilty?

This is the point in the argument where if it was flipped around, you would say "cool it" or "knock it off" to the other person.  Just sayin'

Matt's comment was also misleadi

[Abu3baid]

21 minutes ago, k-troop said:

Not really a technicality in that some clearly relevant evidence was excluded due to a defective warrant or rights advisement or something.  More like this: Imagine a murder/rape case we'll call People v. Barney.  DNA evidence may have been collected in the investigation, analyzed at a lab, concluded to be relevant, and used at trial.  Conviction.  Later, the lab is decertified.  (Houston TX DNA lab was decertified some time ago because of manipulation of test results, which I can inadequately explain in a spoiler window below.)  The relevant DNA in Barney's case was obtained from semen found in a relevant location; it's assumed the murdered victim was also raped by the murderer, so the semen must belong to the murderer.  The lab may have been decertified for proven manipulation of samples in an unrelated case, but that calls into question all of the DNA results from that lab during a relevant period.  Thus, Barney's DNA is deemed "inadmissable" at his trial post-conviction.  Because it was in fact admitted, the court now must review whether the conviction would stand beyond a reasonable doubt without the DNA, standing only on the other evidence the jury considered.  Nearly impossible, as DNA evidence is considered so compelling that no appellate court would conclude that the erroneously admitted DNA didn't affect the verdict.

Or

Conviction.  The results of the DNA test in Barney's case is deemed to have been manipulated and thus is deemed inadmissible post-conviction.  Court again has to determine whether the conviction would have absolutely followed without the DNA, which they never will (particularly in this case where there's actual misconduct not just implied bias).

Note in both of the above examples there could be other evidence that clearly points to guilt, but because the trial is tainted by the DNA evidence the conviction is overturned.  This is still an "exoneration" although innocence has not been proven on the facts.

Some DNA exonerations actually involve DNA evidence that proves someone else did it.  These are quite rare.  There was a case in Texas where a guy confessed dozens of times and was actually exonerated by DNA after serving like 12 years. What caused the individual to confess multiple times is subject only to speculation, but again such cases are so rare that while interesting, they're hardly a reason to make significant structural changes to the judicial system.

Matt's comment was also misleadi

Great information here.  Thanks for sharing!

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, k-troop said:

The lab may have been decertified for proven manipulation of samples in an unrelated case, but that calls into question all of the DNA results from that lab during a relevant period.  Thus, Barney's DNA is deemed "inadmissable" at his trial post-conviction.  Because it was in fact admitted, the court now must review whether the conviction would stand beyond a reasonable doubt without the DNA, standing only on the other evidence the jury considered.  Nearly impossible, as DNA evidence is considered so compelling that no appellate court would conclude that the erroneously admitted DNA didn't affect the verdict.

That's kind of what I meant by a technicality. There may have been nothing wrong with the DNA sample in that case, but because the lab was decertified over another case or cases, all the evidence is thrown out.

IANAL so I wasn't trying to use the word "technicality" in a legal sense if there is one.

[k-troop]

Apparently half of my post was deleted when I edited it for grammar.  WTF???

I really don't want to re-type my half-assed explanation of DNA testing as it relates to forensic evidence, as I'm far from an expert (I've worked with DNA evidence in a handful of cases but not in several years).  Suffice it to say that there are so many variables in how a sample of biological material is transferred, preserved, collected, stored, amplified, tested, etc., including mixture with other biological material and dilution, that the range of probabilities that a DNA test can yield is wide.  A YSTR "match" can give you a 1 in 200 probability, or an autosomal test can give you a 1 in trillions.  (The probability as stated is inverted:  it's essentially stating we have a match, and it's a 1 in 200 chance that it's a false match because someone else has this same pattern.)  Most manipulation cases involve misstating the variables that result in the probability, the condition/mixtures of the samples, etc. so as to overstate the probability.  Regardless, a "low" probability match is still like a 99% chance that the sample came from the suspect. 

Additionally, @Golfingdad, Matt's post was also misleading.  He stated that "significant percentages" of guilty pleas are made by innocent people.  He supported that claim with a statistic that 300ish folks over 30 years were exonerated by the innocence project, and 31 of those were guilty pleas.  10% of a tiny fraction of a percent is not a "significant percentage."  Y'all can argue whether it's "all" or "none" depending on which side of the coin you're looking at, but it's a heckuvalot closer to none than it is to a significant percentage.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, k-troop said:

Apparently half of my post was deleted when I edited it for grammar.  WTF???

It appears you goofed, yeah.  Unfortunately we don't keep minute-by-minute backups, and there's no edit history as with Huddler.

4 minutes ago, k-troop said:

Additionally, @Golfingdad, Matt's post was also misleading.  He stated that "significant percentages" of guilty pleas are made by innocent people.  He supported that claim with a statistic that 300ish folks over 30 years were exonerated by the innocence project, and 31 of those were guilty pleas.  10% of a tiny fraction of a percent is not a "significant percentage."  Y'all can argue whether it's "all" or "none", but it's a heckuvalot closer to none than it is to a significant percentage.

Let's keep that portion of stuff on topic. I'm not saying the above isn't, just that… the "meta" stuff doesn't really belong here.

Take that how you want.

Unsurprisingly, I really have no position on the amount of plea bargains. I'm surprised it's 97%, but not shocked, if that makes any sense.

[boogielicious]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's kind of what I meant by a technicality. There may have been nothing wrong with the DNA sample in that case, but because the lab was decertified over another case or cases, all the evidence is thrown out.

IANAL so I wasn't trying to use the word "technicality" in a legal sense if there is one.

FWIW, we had a huge issue with this in MA. A crime lab tech named Annie Dookhan, falsified thousands of tests. Hundreds of cases had to be reviewed and many were released. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, boogielicious said:

FWIW, we had a huge issue with this in MA. A crime lab tech named Annie Dookhan, falsified thousands of tests. Hundreds of cases had to be reviewed and many were released. 

Those would not be what I meant by a technicality, if she actually directly affected the results pertaining to that trial. (Nor am I saying you were saying I would call it that… just clarifying.)

What I meant re: "technicality" was that a lab is decertified because it's found to be "bad" in some way for cases A, B, and C, but may have been fully compliant and generated good results for cases X, Y, and Z. If the people in X, Y, and Z are released, that's on a technicality, in my opinion.

Just like how if the police find a murder weapon but the court accidentally typed the wrong address on the search warrant and the results of the search are inadmissible, I'd call that a technicality, too.

But none of that shit is on topic, so I'm going to shut up now.

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Those would not be what I meant by a technicality, if she actually directly affected the results pertaining to that trial. (Nor am I saying you were saying I would call it that… just clarifying.)

What I meant re: "technicality" was that a lab is decertified because it's found to be "bad" in some way for cases A, B, and C, but may have been fully compliant and generated good results for cases X, Y, and Z. If the people in X, Y, and Z are released, that's on a technicality, in my opinion.

Just like how if the police find a murder weapon but the court accidentally typed the wrong address on the search warrant and the results of the search are inadmissible, I'd call that a technicality, too.

But none of that shit is on topic, so I'm going to shut up now.

Agree. She's in jail now BTW. 

[k-troop]

@iacas I think it is on topic because it helps qualify what "innocence" is.  Innocence means you didn't do the crime, in my book.  Not guilty means just that:  a not guilty verdict, failure to reach a guilty verdict for whatever reason, or a guilty verdict is later overturned.

The vast majority of overturned verdicts, in all cases and categories, are for reasons that do not equate to proof of innocence.  So saying that the plea bargain system has resulted in significant percentages of innocent people pleading guilty is an (arguably flawed) argumentative statement that rests on the validity of many premises, including what is innocence.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, k-troop said:

@iacas I think it is on topic because it helps qualify what "innocence" is.  Innocence means you didn't do the crime, in my book.  Not guilty means just that:  a not guilty verdict, failure to reach a guilty verdict for whatever reason, or a guilty verdict is later overturned.

The vast majority of overturned verdicts, in all cases and categories, are for reasons that do not equate to proof of innocence.  So saying that the plea bargain system has resulted in significant percentages of innocent people pleading guilty is an (arguably flawed) argumentative statement that rests on the validity of many premises, including what is innocence.

Okay. You're the lawyer, not me. This is too close to politics in being something I don't really care about enough to lean one way or the other.

[mdl]

Leaving aside the issue of how many people literally 100% innocent are in prison, it's a preposterous argument to claim that we should be sending everyone to prison that we do, or especially that we need more prisons to house all our criminals.  Consider this list of incarceration rate by country.  Sort high to low on the rate.  The US incarcerates more than 4x what the UK does, 7x what France does.  The nearest country that could plausibly be called first world is the Czech Republic, and they incarcerate less than half as many people as the US.  None of these countries is less safe than the US.  In fact, I haven't looked it up but I'd bet a lot that there's a lot less violent crime in those other rich countries, where incarceration rates 4-10x less than the US's.

The only other countries in the top 30 that aren't tiny (with most of them tiny island nations) are Turkmenistan, Rwanda, Russia, and Thailand.  At 30th place the rate is already well less than half of that in the US.

[k-troop]

8 minutes ago, mdl said:

Leaving aside the issue of how many people literally 100% innocent are in prison, it's a preposterous argument to claim that we should be sending everyone to prison that we do, or especially that we need more prisons to house all our criminals.  Consider this list of incarceration rate by country.  Sort high to low on the rate.  The US incarcerates more than 4x what the UK does, 7x what France does.  The nearest country that could plausibly be called first world is the Czech Republic, and they incarcerate less than half as many people as the US.  None of these countries is less safe than the US.  In fact, I haven't looked it up but I'd bet a lot that there's a lot less violent crime in those other rich countries, where incarceration rates 4-10x less than the US's.

The only other countries in the top 30 that aren't tiny (with most of them tiny island nations) are Turkmenistan, Rwanda, Russia, and Thailand.  At 30th place the rate is already well less than half of that in the US.

Yeah, that's a different argument and topic.  Most of our over-incarceration problem stems from drug laws, not from the coercion of innocents to plead guilty.

The drug laws were put in place for a reason, particularly in Florida (to loop back to the OP).  The culture has changed.  It might be time for the laws to change too.

This is different (I think) than previous culture changes that resulted in previously illegal activities being legalized.  Sodomy, miscegeny, homosexuality, etc. were all similarly illegal things which have been culturally legitimized over the last half century.  They are now all legal due to application of constitutional law rather than significant shift in public opinion. 

Drugs are one of those malum prohibitum things that don't affect an absolute constitutional right so the legislatures are going to have to make changes in order to minimize the impact of drug convictions on prison populations.  I seriously doubt our legislatures will be able to agree on changes anytime soon.

[mdl]

@k-troop, I see your point, but I don't think this is a separate topic.  I think the great expansion of prosecutorial power, ever expanding min sentences, drug laws, etc. are intertwined with both the increase in the amount of plea bargaining and the over-incarceration rates.

And I agree that the drug war has basically been a disaster (regardless of arguments about the at the time wisdom of initial steps in that direction), but I'll just point out that it's actually a fairly low percentage of prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders.  In other words, even if you only considered offenders whose crimes qualify as violent (even if no one was harmed, armed robbery where no one was injured for example), the US would still have an incarceration rate massively higher than the rest of the rich world, and most of all of the world.  I don't buy an argument that Americans are just culturally more violent than those in every other rich country, so we're back to the cycle with no clear initial cause that includes the drug war, almost universal plea bargaining, excessive prosecutorial power, race history, other historical factors, and much other stuff.

[Silent]

I guess the fact that sentences in USA are much higher than in most other Western countries is also a factor in the incarceration rates.

[newtogolf]

18 hours ago, mdl said:

@k-troop, I see your point, but I don't think this is a separate topic.  I think the great expansion of prosecutorial power, ever expanding min sentences, drug laws, etc. are intertwined with both the increase in the amount of plea bargaining and the over-incarceration rates.

And I agree that the drug war has basically been a disaster (regardless of arguments about the at the time wisdom of initial steps in that direction), but I'll just point out that it's actually a fairly low percentage of prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders.  In other words, even if you only considered offenders whose crimes qualify as violent (even if no one was harmed, armed robbery where no one was injured for example), the US would still have an incarceration rate massively higher than the rest of the rich world, and most of all of the world.  I don't buy an argument that Americans are just culturally more violent than those in every other rich country, so we're back to the cycle with no clear initial cause that includes the drug war, almost universal plea bargaining, excessive prosecutorial power, race history, other historical factors, and much other stuff.

Or maybe it's because there are 64 million people in the UK, 66 million in France and over 320 million in the US