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

3point14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is not a deal in the UK system. All it does is allow - at sentencing - for the defence to argue for a reduction in the tariff and if the judge believes it is appropriate given the crime, for many crimes there is no reduction and the prosecution can argue at sentencing that the maximum tariff should be applied regardless of a guilty or innocent plea. It is not like the USA were someone will not be prosecuted for the more serious crime or crimes they have committed or the prosecution say they will only ask for a lower tariff at the sentencing hearing. if they “do a deal”.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

What the actual ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about? The US is the same way. The penalty for going through a full trial is absolutely more harsh than not going through one. Are you just looking to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ argue with people or do you genuinely not know anything about the legal system in your own country?
 
plague311 said:
What the actual ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about? The US is the same way. The penalty for going through a full trial is absolutely more harsh than not going through one. Are you just looking to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ argue with people or do you genuinely not know anything about the legal system in your own country?
Click to expand...
In the UK, there's a perverse incentive for an innocent man to plead guilty if the evidence, while flawed, is against them. I put it on the same tier of perversity as parole boards that expect an innocent man to admit guilt in order to qualify for parole.
 
plague311 said:
What the actual ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about? The US is the same way. The penalty for going through a full trial is absolutely more harsh than not going through one. Are you just looking to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ argue with people or do you genuinely not know anything about the legal system in your own country?
Click to expand...
I think we all know the answer to that ;)
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Whereas in the U.S. there's a perverse incentive for an innocent man to plead guilty if the evidence, whole flawed, is against them.
Click to expand...
That is true because it is often put that you risk a serious conviction if you go to trial even if you are innocent. But if you agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge then you have "certainty".

It's more than a perverse incentive it is unjust and a perversion of "innocent until proven guilty", it means at the core the USA justice systems are rotten.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Whereas in the U.S. there's a perverse incentive for an innocent man to plead guilty if the evidence, whole flawed, is against them.
Click to expand...
Enh. I've been watching a lot of US court proceedings on YouTube over the past year or so. Turns out a lot of things I took for granted about our justice system are either Hollywood nonsense, or urban legends, or both.

Plea deals in the US are more about expediency and pragmatic leniency than anything else. Police bodycams are a big factor, I think. People who are caught dead to rights by the evidence get offered probation instead of prison time because the prisons are overcrowded, the court docket is backlogged, and nobody wants to drag thirty citizens away from their lives to make up a jury pool.

And, in stark contrast to the UKian system, if someone does want to take their chance with the evidence, and they lose anyway, the fact that they opted to go to trial is not held against them at sentencing time. Think of the US plea deal system as a form of non-binding arbitration. The two parties get together, discuss the various factors of the case, and see if they can reach an agreement. That's then recommended to the judge, who either accepts it or not. Meanwhile, in the UK, the court just holds a grudge against anyone who goes to trial instead of confessing at the outset.
 
theprestige said:
And, in stark contrast to the UKian system, if someone does want to take their chance with the evidence, and they lose anyway, the fact that they opted to go to trial is not held against them at sentencing time.
Click to expand...
I think you mis-spelled "exactly like the UKian system".
 
theprestige said:
Plea deals in the US are more about expediency and pragmatic leniency than anything else. Police bodycams are a big factor, I think. People who are caught dead to rights by the evidence get offered probation instead of prison time because the prisons are overcrowded, the court docket is backlogged, and nobody wants to drag thirty citizens away from their lives to make up a jury pool.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the rationale behind the discount for a guilty plea in the UK system.
 
theprestige said:
Except that in the US court system, it is explicitly not held against you at sentencing, if you do go to trial instead.
Click to expand...

pffhahahaha yes it is, they just don't say the quite part out loud. It abso ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lutely is and if you what a bunch of court youtube then you're only seeing the end product. You're not seeing "how the sausage is made". You are making ludicrous statements here. I mean, completely out of right field.

If you don't take a plea bargain, and you force them to go through the process (you know the "pulling 30 people away from their lives for a trial) then you are not going to end up getting the same punishment as you were offered in the plea bargain. It's not going to happen. You are going to get significantly more, and every honest prosecutor will say exactly that.

I think it's funny how you chastise "hollywood court" while watching youtube court.
 
plague311 said:
pffhahahaha yes it is, they just don't say the quite part out loud. It abso ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lutely is and if you what a bunch of court youtube then you're only seeing the end product. You're not seeing "how the sausage is made". You are making ludicrous statements here. I mean, completely out of right field.

If you don't take a plea bargain, and you force them to go through the process (you know the "pulling 30 people away from their lives for a trial) then you are not going to end up getting the same punishment as you were offered in the plea bargain. It's not going to happen. You are going to get significantly more, and every honest prosecutor will say exactly that.

I think it's funny how you chastise "hollywood court" while watching youtube court.
Click to expand...
obviously I disagree
 
theprestige said:
Except that in the US court system, it is explicitly not held against you at sentencing, if you do go to trial instead.
Click to expand...
If someone refuses a plea deal, they do not get the sentence for the lesser offence they refused to plead guilty to, do they? So refusing the plea deal is held against them.
 
Mojo said:
If someone refuses a plea deal, they do not get the sentence for the lesser offence they refused to plead guilty to, do they? So refusing the plea deal is held against them.
Click to expand...
The nuance is the fact of the deal. If the two parties can reach an agreement, and the judge finds it acceptable, great! If not, it goes to trial. That's an informed decision the defendant makes. And if they are convicted, the judge doesn't impose a harsher sentence on them than the crime itself merits, just because they went to trial instead of confessing up front.

If I understand Glenn B's explanation correctly, this is not the case in the UK. For one thing, the defendant isn't given the option of agreeing to a lesser charge. For another - again, if I understand Glenn B - someone convicted in the UK can get a harsher sentence than the crime itself merits, because they did not confess up front.

I'm not saying that US-style plea deals are a good thing. I'm saying that the distinction I see between the two systems makes the UKian system worse in my eyes.

Is Glenn B wrong? Are these guys not at risk of getting a harsher sentence, because they went to trial instead of pleading guilty up front?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
The nuance is the fact of the deal. If the two parties can reach an agreement, and the judge finds it acceptable, great! If not, it goes to trial. That's an informed decision the defendant makes. And if they are convicted, the judge doesn't impose a harsher sentence on them than the crime itself merits, just because they went to trial instead of confessing up front.

If I understand Glenn B's explanation correctly, this is not the case in the UK. For one thing, the defendant isn't given the option of agreeing to a lesser charge. For another - again, if I understand Glenn B - someone convicted in the UK can get a harsher sentence than the crime itself merits, because they did not confess up front.
Click to expand...
No. They might get a more lenient sentence than the crime would otherwise merit if they 'fess up.
 
With the big difference that UK judges are selected on their legal skills, rather than elected based on promises to send as many people to jail as possible.
 
theprestige said:
The nuance is the fact of the deal. If the two parties can reach an agreement, and the judge finds it acceptable, great! If not, it goes to trial. That's an informed decision the defendant makes. And if they are convicted, the judge doesn't impose a harsher sentence on them than the crime itself merits, just because they went to trial instead of confessing up front.

If I understand Glenn B's explanation correctly, this is not the case in the UK. For one thing, the defendant isn't given the option of agreeing to a lesser charge. For another - again, if I understand Glenn B - someone convicted in the UK can get a harsher sentence than the crime itself merits, because they did not confess up front.

I'm not saying that US-style plea deals are a good thing. I'm saying that the distinction I see between the two systems makes the UKian system worse in my eyes.

Is Glenn B wrong? Are these guys not at risk of getting a harsher sentence, because they went to trial instead of pleading guilty up front?
Click to expand...
GlennB is correct, it's you who is wrong.
If I was accused of burglary, which carries a tariff of 2yrs imprisonment, the prosecution has clear CCTV evidence of me climbing in and out of a window with a big pile of diamonds in my arms. The police follow a trail of diamonds from the scene, all the way to my front door, think Hansel and Gretel. My DNA is all over the scene and the police and I know that I did it. If I plead guilty to save the crown time and money, I may get away with a year. If I had convincing mitigating reasons for doing so, the penalty could be as little as a suspended sentence. Under no circumstances would I face an increased sentence greater than the tariff allows.
 
GlennB said:
No. They might get a more lenient sentence than the crime would otherwise merit if they 'fess up.
Click to expand...
welshdean said:
GlennB is correct, it's you who is wrong.
If I was accused of burglary, which carries a tariff of 2yrs imprisonment, the prosecution has clear CCTV evidence of me climbing in and out of a window with a big pile of diamonds in my arms. The police follow a trail of diamonds from the scene, all the way to my front door, think Hansel and Gretel. My DNA is all over the scene and the police and I know that I did it. If I plead guilty to save the crown time and money, I may get away with a year. If I had convincing mitigating reasons for doing so, the penalty could be as little as a suspended sentence. Under no circumstances would I face an increased sentence greater than the tariff allows.
Click to expand...
Basic arithmetic lost its power to bamboozle me around the time I turned six years old.
 
One difference is that, in the US, the defendant is usually massively and ridiculously OVERcharged and threatened with lengthy terms of imprisonment in order to encourage them to take a plea deal and plead guilty to a "lesser" crime (which may still be overcharging, btw) and avoid a jury trial. Over 90% of defendants take such a plea deal. Also, the legal of expense of a jury trials (and the lawyer fees) will be through the roof if you do insist on a jury trial.

Even when you do take the deal and plead guilty, there's absolutely no commitment on the part of the prosecutor to stick to the bargain either. They may still massively overcharge you if they feel like it.

I speak from personal experience here. Jury trials are a complete spin of the wheel. Particularly if you're not deemed a sympathetic defendant.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Enh. I've been watching a lot of US court proceedings on YouTube over the past year or so. Turns out a lot of things I took for granted about our justice system are either Hollywood nonsense, or urban legends, or both.

Plea deals in the US are more about expediency and pragmatic leniency than anything else. Police bodycams are a big factor, I think. People who are caught dead to rights by the evidence get offered probation instead of prison time because the prisons are overcrowded, the court docket is backlogged, and nobody wants to drag thirty citizens away from their lives to make up a jury pool.

And, in stark contrast to the UKian system, if someone does want to take their chance with the evidence, and they lose anyway, the fact that they opted to go to trial is not held against them at sentencing time. Think of the US plea deal system as a form of non-binding arbitration. The two parties get together, discuss the various factors of the case, and see if they can reach an agreement. That's then recommended to the judge, who either accepts it or not. Meanwhile, in the UK, the court just holds a grudge against anyone who goes to trial instead of confessing at the outset.
Click to expand...
For someone who has watched a lot of US court proceedings, you seem to know an awful lot about UK court proceedings.
 
theprestige said:
No. I'm talking about punishing the accused for not pleading guilty to begin with.
Click to expand...
Nobody else is. In the UK, if you plead guilty, you might get a lighter sentence for various reasons. That is all.

theprestige said:
I think it's perverse to condition a lighter sentence on admitting to a crime that hasn't been proven yet.
Click to expand...

If you admit it, it has been proven. You accept it was a crime and you accept that you did it.

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that people who plead guilty still go to trial? In fact, it is in the trial that they plead guilty. They also might still get the full sentence.
 
jeremyp said:
Do you understand that people who plead guilty still go to trial? In fact, it is in the trial that they plead guilty. They also might still get the full sentence.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you mean by "go to trial." A criminal process consists of several hearings, including the arraignment, possibly a preliminary hearing, and any number of roll call hearings as discovery progresses. A plea agreement can be executed at any time after charges are brought, and will ordinary preclude the traditional trial.

The plea agreement may bind the prosecutor as to what sentence they ask for, but nothing binds the court to impose a lesser or agreed-upon sentence.
 
JayUtah said:
That depends on what you mean by "go to trial." A criminal process consists of several hearings, including the arraignment, possibly a preliminary hearing, and any number of roll call hearings as discovery progresses. A plea agreement can be executed at any time after charges are brought, and will ordinary preclude the traditional trial.

The plea agreement may bind the prosecutor as to what sentence they ask for, but nothing binds the court to impose a lesser or agreed-upon sentence.
Click to expand...
jeremyp was talking about the UK, where there is no plea bargaining.
 
theprestige said:
The nuance is the fact of the deal. If the two parties can reach an agreement, and the judge finds it acceptable, great! If not, it goes to trial. That's an informed decision the defendant makes. And if they are convicted, the judge doesn't impose a harsher sentence on them than the crime itself merits, just because they went to trial instead of confessing up front.
Click to expand...
Except, as far as I understand how the plea bargaining system works, they are being tried for a more serious offence, and the sentence is therefore likely to be more substantial than if they had agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
 
zooterkin said:
Except, as far as I understand how the plea bargaining system works, they are being tried for a more serious offence, and the sentence is therefore likely to be more substantial than if they had agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's seriously 6 of one, half dozen of another. They're the same thing.

Whatever the UK is doing they're having better outcomes than the US is in the most important metric (to me), and that's recidivism rate.
Recidivism rates in the US are generally higher than in the UK, with the US often having rates above 70% compared to the UK's 46% within one year of release
Click to expand...

That's extremely important to me. I'm not sure if the plea bargain, or lack thereof in this case, plays any role but if it keeps people from re-offending then I'm all for it. The U.S. legal system is built around fear on behalf of the accused. As has been mentioned the prosecutors here will overcharge as a default, and then make it sound like you're getting a great deal by signing on the dotted line. It's bull ◊◊◊◊, especially for people like me who got in a ton of trouble one night, shortly after they turned 18, and then just panicked and did whatever I was told by my court appointed attorney because I trusted them. Spoiler, they don't care about you. My court appointed and the prosecutor worked together to get me to take a deal that, every attorney since has told me, was not in my best interest.
 
jeremyp said:
Do you understand that people who plead guilty still go to trial?
Click to expand...
No, I don't understand that at all. That's certainly not how it works in the US.

Can you point me to definitive documentation that the UK process includes going to trial after a guilty plea has been entered?

My bet is that you assume that every court appearance in a case is part of the trial as such. That's not true in the US, and someone in the US who was representing themselves with that assumption would get themselves into a lot of trouble over how badly they misunderstood the process. A lawyer who took on a case with that understanding would end up disbarred for incompetence.

Is it different in the UK?
 
The other aspect I've heard about, but which I don't think has been mentioned, is that if you don't take a plea bargain then, at least in some States, you may be waiting a long time in prison for your case to come to court.
 
theprestige said:
No, I don't understand that at all. That's certainly not how it works in the US.

Can you point me to definitive documentation that the UK process includes going to trial after a guilty plea has been entered?

My bet is that you assume that every court appearance in a case is part of the trial as such. That's not true in the US, and someone in the US who was representing themselves with that assumption would get themselves into a lot of trouble over how badly they misunderstood the process. A lawyer who took on a case with that understanding would end up disbarred for incompetence.

Is it different in the UK?
Click to expand...
That's not even a thing in the US. Why would it be in the UK?
The Supreme Court has established that if a defendant chooses to represent themselves, they must do so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, meaning they understand the potential risks and consequences.
Click to expand...

You're talking about someone defending themselves that wouldn't know about a basic process in the US criminal system. Wow, you really don't know anything about the process here in the US, do you? You should watch more youtube.
 
zooterkin said:
The other aspect I've heard about, but which I don't think has been mentioned, is that if you don't take a plea bargain then, at least in some States, you may be waiting a long time in prison for your case to come to court.
Click to expand...
There is a speedy trial requirement. The government must bring its case to trial within a short time after arraignment, generally 30 to 60 days depending on the degree of the charge. The problem is that the defense can waive speedy trial and continue the trial date (and often must) because it may take longer than that to prepare a defense. Whether a defendant is held in custody during that time depends on the jurisdiction's bail policy, and this has been getting a lot of attention in the US.
 
plague311 said:
My court appointed and the prosecutor worked together to get me to take a deal that, every attorney since has told me, was not in my best interest.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this is the worst part of the American system. It often seems like it devolves to an assembly-line process where the vast majority of cases are subjected to the same impersonal set of steps designed to get from arrest to sentence with as little fuss as possible.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree we shouldn't... but it happens in the US a fair bit. While it shouldn't happen, it absolutely does. In cases where the accused is innocent, but there's enough circumstantial evidence and a lack of solid alibi, we end up with innocent people pleading guilty because the deal provides them with a significantly lighter sentence than if they go to trial and lose. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes that "reasonable doubt" standard is pretty low.

Even worse are settlement agreements that happen in white-collar crimes and prevent a trial from ever even being considered. There are many situations where someone ends up getting the short end in a negotiation just because they can't afford to go to trial. There's a lot of corporate abuses involved there.
 
welshdean said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it's perfectly fair to let US folks criticize the UK system, given that UK folks seem to do plenty of criticizing of the US system.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
I kind of get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure it's meaningfully different from plea deals in the US.

If someone pleads guilty in the US, they'll generally get a lighter sentence than if they go to trial and lose. Not always, of course, but pretty often. One might argue that we do the same thing, and reserve full sentencing for people who go to trial too.
 
3point14 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this, I'm not really seeing any material difference. Maybe I'm missing some nuance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom