Split Thread Plea bargaining in the US, UK, and elsewhere

[theprestige]

Why are these clowns pleading 'not guilty'?

Probably to force the state to actually make a case against them.

Split from

Thread 'Famous Sycamore Gap tree on Hadrian's Wall had been deliberately cut down'

Sep 28, 2023

Tree down

The not-completely-unknown sycamore at a depression on Hadrian's Wall had stood for a few hundred years, until it was discovered today, fallen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66947040

Reports suggesting it was deliberately felled; the stump does look remarkably smooth. I wouldn't rule out stormy weather, not being an arborist personally, but if humans were involved: bastards.

The location is rural, but not difficult to access, albeit involving about a twenty-minute walk from the nearest road.

Picture is from my visit on Monday afternoon...

• commandlinegamer
• Replies: 560
• Forum: Social Issues (Current Events now moved)

Posted By: jimbob

 

[GlennB]

Probably to force the state to actually make a case against them.

They filmed themselves doing it. The metadata from the video also pinpoints that exact location.
etc etc

 

[theprestige]

They filmed themselves doing it. The metadata from the video also pinpoints that exact location.
etc etc

So we have been told. None of that counts until it's actually entered into evidence and argued in court.

Does the UK do plea deals? Unless they're rejecting an offer for a lesser charge and a lighter sentence, they don't really have anything to lose by making the state give them due process, rather than simply copping to it up front. There's always a chance the prosecution or the court will make a procedural mistake and let them off the hook.

---

I mean, of course the ethical thing to do would be to confess and accept the consequences. But it's already established that these people aren't concerned about ethics. Pragmatically, the reason they're pleading not guilty seems pretty clear to me. Are you really confused on this point? Or just outraged at their self-serving trial strategy?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The info being relayed is the prosecution case being presented at the trial. I infer live audio and maybe video is being summarised on the BBC News site.

The UK doesn't have the system of doing deals for a lesser charge, but pleading guilty will be taken into consideration and can get you a lesser sentence. Pragmatically, when you've recorded yourself committing the crime and the prosecution have access to all that evidence, pleading not guilty is not a beneficial choice.

 

[theprestige]

Lots of people want to know why they did it. As long as they're maintaining their innocence they don't need to come up with an excuse for what looks like a disgusting act of pure malice.

Good point. I'd forgotten about the UK practice of making convicts publish tell-all memoirs detailing their motives.

 

[GlennB]

So we have been told. None of that counts until it's actually entered into evidence and argued in court.

Does the UK do plea deals? Unless they're rejecting an offer for a lesser charge and a lighter sentence, they don't really have anything to lose by making the state give them due process, rather than simply copping to it up front. There's always a chance the prosecution or the court will make a procedural mistake and let them off the hook.

---

I mean, of course the ethical thing to do would be to confess and accept the consequences. But it's already established that these people aren't concerned about ethics. Pragmatically, the reason they're pleading not guilty seems pretty clear to me. Are you really confused on this point? Or just outraged at their self-serving trial strategy?

What is it? Their sentence would probably have been reduced had they spared everybody the charade they're playing.

 

[theprestige]

The UK doesn't have the system of doing deals for a lesser charge, but pleading guilty will be taken into consideration and can get you a lesser sentence.

Somehow the UK has hit upon a worse system than the US practice of plea deals.

---

I think Brazil does it best: No plea deals, no threats of a greater punishment if the accused stands on their right to a fair trial. Just leniency in sentencing if the convict cooperates with an ongoing investigation (sucks if you acted alone, but great if you're a co-conspirator).

 

[theprestige]

What is it? Their sentence would probably have been reduced had they spared everybody the charade they're playing.

Yeah, I've just been educated about the UK's perverse incentive to give up your right to a fair trial.

 

[Mojo]

Yeah, I've just been educated about the UK's perverse incentive to give up your right to a fair trial.

It isn't any more perverse than the US's, but that's perhaps a little off-topic here.

 

[3point14]

Good point. I'd forgotten about the UK practice of making convicts publish tell-all memoirs detailing their motives.

You may be missing the point that this way, at least they have to answer some questions.

I like that you're taking this incident as an opportunity to have a pop at the UK justice system. Why miss an opportunity to stir the pot, eh? Let me know when you've run out of spoons.

 

[Mojo]

Good point. I 'd forgotten about the 've made up a UK practice of making convicts publish tell-all memoirs detailing their motives.

Fixed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Somehow the UK has hit upon a worse system than the US practice of plea deals.

---

I think Brazil does it best: No plea deals, no threats of a greater punishment if the accused stands on their right to a fair trial. Just leniency in sentencing if the convict cooperates with an ongoing investigation (sucks if you acted alone, but great if you're a co-conspirator).

I think your Brizilian system is what I was trying to describe the UK uses. It's not usual to be offered a deal to get a reduced charge. Cooperation is taken into account at sentencing.

But then again with the step-by-step trail of evidence these guys seem to have created, I doubt any US prosecutor would waste a moment on offering them a deal.

 

[jeremyp]

Well, that was my first thought, but it certainly reads as though they are, hence my question.

In British courts, you are still not even allowed to sketch the defendant while inside the court room: you have to do the sketches after you leave, which is why they always look so bad. It is legal to take notes, but, if it is for the purpose of some sort of live feed, you have to have permission

How you can attend or access courts or tribunals

www.gov.uk

The BBC as a legitimate media organisation probably seeks permission from the court to do live updates.

 

[jeremyp]

Yeah, I've just been educated about the UK's perverse incentive to give up your right to a fair trial.

What the hell are you talking about? If they plead guilty, they may be treated more leniently in sentencing. There's still a trial, but it will be very short. This is entirely due to the fact that the prosecution will not need to present a case.

Also, pleading guilty is a sign that you accept that what you did was wrong and therefore, perhaps you have remorse, which also has an impact on your sentence. Again, there's no giving up to the right of fair trial. There's still a trial.

There's still a chance for the system to be abused. Unscrupulous prosecutors (cough Post Office cough) can put pressure on defendants to plead guilty for a lesser sentence so they don't have to present, what is probably, a weak case. But the same applies to the Brazilian system as you have described it and to the US system in spades as I have seen it depicted in American TV shows (OK, that might not be totally reliable).

 

[theprestige]

You may be missing the point that this way, at least they have to answer some questions.

Do they, though? That's right; doesn't UK also have the perverse custom of holding a grudge against the accused, if he declines to testify on his own behalf?

I like that you're taking this incident as an opportunity to have a pop at the UK justice system. Why miss an opportunity to stir the pot, eh? Let me know when you've run out of spoons.

Not the incident itself, but the current trend of the conversation. In any case, I've satisfied my curiosity on the point.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do they, though? That's right; doesn't UK also have the perverse custom of holding a grudge against the accused, if he declines to testify on his own behalf?

It appears you are unfamiliar with the "golden thread that runs through British justice". I recommend you read "Rumpole of the Bailey".

He also explains why you should never plead guilty. Never!

 

[theprestige]

I think your Brizilian system is what I was trying to describe the UK uses. It's not usual to be offered a deal to get a reduced charge. Cooperation is taken into account at sentencing.

Punishing the accused for going to trial seems to me to take the principle too far. We should not incentivize an innocent man to be complicit in his own false conviction, in the hopes of better treatment if imperfect evidence prevail.

But then again with the step-by-step trail of evidence these guys seem to have created, I doubt any US prosecutor would waste a moment on offering them a deal.

No argument there.

 

[theprestige]

It isn't any more perverse than the US's, but that's perhaps a little off-topic here.

Fair enough; the UKian practice is perverse in its own right. But does explain Glenn B's question. I guess we'll find out soon enough if the plea is part of some trial strategy, or if it is simple obtuseness on their part.

 

[welshdean]

If they were Americans and very rich, they could have chopped a tree down on 5th Ave, been found guilty, and still not see the inside of a gaol.

I'd leave the criticism of the UK justice alone if I were a USAian.

 

[Mojo]

Do they, though? That's right; doesn't UK also have the perverse custom of holding a grudge against the accused, if he declines to testify on his own behalf?

Nope, but

It appears you are unfamiliar with the "golden thread that runs through British justice". I recommend you read "Rumpole of the Bailey".

He also explains why you should never plead guilty. Never!

I think the Rumpole books were written before the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

 

[Puppycow]

Fair enough; the UKian practice is perverse in its own right. But does explain Glenn B's question. I guess we'll find out soon enough if the plea is part of some trial strategy, or if it is simple obtuseness on their part.

My nickel is on obtuseness. If they were smart enough to have a logical trial strategy, they probably would have been smart enough not to do what they did.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Punishing the accused for going to trial ...

Punishing the guilty for committing their crime is the concept you were grasping for. They don't get punished more for having a trial. We were discussing factors which might reduce a sentence. I don't know how you got the idea a reduced sentence is expected so the recommended sentence for a particular offence is an increase.

 

[plague311]

Good point. I'd forgotten about the UK practice of making convicts publish tell-all memoirs detailing their motives.

Uhm, if you take a plea deal for a crime in the United States you have to get up in front of the court and explain why you did what you did, and the events that happened that night. - Signed, someone who took a felony plea deal and had to do exactly that.

 

[theprestige]

Uhm, if you take a plea deal for a crime in the United States you have to get up in front of the court and explain why you did what you did, and the events that happened that night. - Signed, someone who took a felony plea deal and had to do exactly that.

Yes, but if you plead not guilty and go to trial, you don't have to answer ◊◊◊◊ all, and it won't even be held against you.

Apparently it's different in the UK.

 

[3point14]

Yes, but if you plead not guilty and go to trial, you don't have to answer ◊◊◊◊ all, and it won't even be held against you.

Apparently it's different in the UK.

Whodathunkit?

 

[theprestige]

Punishing the guilty for committing their crime is the concept you were grasping for.

No. I'm talking about punishing the accused for not pleading guilty to begin with.

I think it's perverse to condition a lighter sentence on admitting to a crime that hasn't been proven yet. I don't think that's justice at all, even if the accused really is guilty.

Standing on your right to a fair trial is not a crime. It's not an aggravation or enhancement of a crime. Reserving the full sentence for people who go to trial is perverse. Your sophistry on the point notwithstanding.

 

[3point14]

No. I'm talking about punishing the accused for not pleading guilty to begin with.

I think it's perverse to condition a lighter sentence on admitting to a crime that hasn't been proven yet. I don't think that's justice at all, even if the accused really is guilty.

Standing on your right to a fair trial is not a crime. It's not an aggravation or enhancement of a crime. Reserving the full sentence for people who go to trial is perverse. Your sophistry on the point notwithstanding.

You think the whole 'plea bargain' thing is fairer?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think it's perverse to condition a lighter sentence on admitting to a crime that hasn't been proven yet. I don't think that's justice at all, even if the accused really is guilty.

Is that somehow differently perverse from, say, doing a deal to admit guilt of a lesser charge which hasn't been proven yet?

 

[theprestige]

You think the whole 'plea bargain' thing is fairer?

I do; but that's not important here. I also think the UKian practice is monstrously unfair in its own right. Any comparative discussion is superfluous.

 

[theprestige]

Is that somehow differently perverse from, say, doing a deal to admit guilt of a lesser charge which hasn't been proven yet?

Already addressed.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Reserving the full sentence for people who go to trial is perverse.

It isn't reserved for people who go to trial. Admission of guilt is no guarantee of a discounted sentence.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Already addressed.

Not noticably.

 

[3point14]

I do; but that's not important here. I also think the UKian practice is monstrously unfair in its own right. Any comparative discussion is superfluous.

I struggle to see much of a difference between the two in terms of monstrosity.

"Plead guilty, give up your right to a jury trial and receive a reduced sentence" is the same offer in both instances, just through different mechanism, isn't it?

 

[3point14]

Already addressed.

Which post?

 

[theprestige]

It isn't reserved for people who go to trial. Admission of guilt is no guarantee of a discounted sentence.

Sure, it's just taken as a mark against you when it comes to sentencing. Phrase it however you like. Minimize it however you like. The implication is clear, and embraced by UKians, and I think that's a perversion of justice.

Anyway, it's not really up for debate in this thread. Based on what we know, it seems probable they did it. I think it's unfortunate that their insistence on going to trial will be held against them. You don't. We can move on.

 

[theprestige]

Not noticably.

Which post?

Here you go:

I do; but that's not important here. I also think the UKian practice is monstrously unfair in its own right. Any comparative discussion is superfluous.

 

[3point14]

Here you go:

Okay, so you can't explain, in any meaningful way, why you think pleading guilty for a lesser sentence within the UK system is more horrific than pleading guilty for a lesser sentence in the USA.

I suspect your readers will apply the appropriate weight to your views, given the evidence you've provided.

 

[theprestige]

Okay, so you can't explain, in any meaningful way, why you think pleading guilty for a lesser sentence within the UK system is more horrific than pleading guilty for a lesser sentence in the USA.

I can, but this isn't the thread for it.

I suspect your readers will apply the appropriate weight to your views, given the evidence you've provided.

I suspect my readers will engage with my views with willful bad faith, because they want to have an argument I'm not interested in.

Anyway, it seems they are insistent on proceeding to trial, in spite of what we are told is the evidence of their guilt. I think it's unfortunate that the UKian system holds this against them, and that UKians seem to embrace this. Whether you agree or not, the next thing to do is wait and see what happens at trial. You can discuss the relative unjustness of various systems of justice in another thread, if that's your pleasure. Stop trying to force a derail here. Move on.

 

[3point14]

I can, but this isn't the thread for it.

I'm afraid I don't believe you. My suspicion is that you've backed yourself into a corner and that you're stonewalling to avoid having to backtrack.

For the avoidance of doubt:

There is no substantive difference between the two systems, both making the offer of giving up a jury trial in exchange for a reduced sentence.

Given the lack of anyone willing to contend the opposite, I think that the above is pretty solidly the conclusion to the debate. The panel would like to thank everyone for their input, winners and losers a like.

You all have a good day now.

 

[theprestige]

I'm afraid I don't believe you. My suspicion is that you've backed yourself into a corner and that you're stonewalling to avoid having to backtrack.

For the avoidance of doubt:

There is no substantive difference between the two systems, both making the offer of giving up a jury trial in exchange for a reduced sentence.

Given the lack of anyone willing to contend the opposite, I think that the above is pretty solidly the conclusion to the debate. The panel would like to thank everyone for their input, winners and losers a like.

You all have a good day now.

k