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

[theprestige]

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.

My view is this: If you plead guilty to a particular charge, you should get the exact same sentence as if you plead not guilty to that same charge and then lose at trial.

The UK system enshrines all the same perversions of justice as a plea deal, without any of the benefits to the accused.

 

[theprestige]

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.

I'm sure you got your money's worth, from all that free legal advice after the fact.

Were you guilty of the thing you pled to?

Were you guilty of the thing you would have gone to trial over?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to make quote visible

 

[theprestige]

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.


That's extremely important to me.

I can think of at least one obvious way to get a 0‰ recudivism rate,if you really don't care about means, just ends.

If reducing recidivism is so extremely important to you, then why don't you advocate shooting every convict in the back of the head? Zero chance of repeat offenders that way.

But of course now you'll stop to consider whether the process is just.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to make quote visible

 

[PitPat]

My view is this: If you plead guilty to a particular charge, you should get the exact same sentence as if you plead not guilty to that same charge and then lose at trial.

The UK system enshrines all the same perversions of justice as a plea deal, without any of the benefits to the accused.

I think that's what's considered an Alford plea. Not admitting guilt, but the state has enough evidence to convict. The penalties are about the same as if you went to trial from what I understand.

It's an interesting question though, how many possibly innocent people just agree to plea deal. Common sense dictates that the defendant has a weak case. But if iffy, that's why there are bench trials (noted elsewhere).

Again, and it cannot be disputed at least in US, without plea agreement, it would destroy our entire legal system very, very quickly.

 

[plague311]

I can think of at least one obvious way to get a 0‰ recudivism rate,if you really don't care about means, just ends.

If reducing recidivism is so extremely important to you, then why don't you advocate shooting every convict in the back of the head? Zero chance of repeat offenders that way.

But of course now you'll stop to consider whether the process is just.

Was this...witty, to you? Did you type this thinking, "Got him now!"? I ask this because it's pretty ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ obvious from my post that the reason recudivism(sp) is important to me is because it, generally, means people change their behavior. They don't go back to jail because they find a way to support themselves, or a way to avoid trouble, etc., but you knew that. It's ridiculous to think that I "really don't care about means, just ends" from anything I posted. I merely pointed out a statistic that is important to me.

It's been pointed out to you ad nauseum that the UK and the US systems are closer than they are apart. You just reply with this like "I disagree" like a 9/11 truther handwaving away reality to enjoy their conspiracy. You boast your youtube experiences as if they mean anything but fail to understand the basic tenants of the US legal system.

I mean, why? What are you gaining from making a post this completely off base and out of right field? Seriously, what's the point?

 

[plague311]

I'm sure you got your money's worth, from all that free legal advice after the fact.

Yup, unfortunately in North Dakota once you plead guilty it's over. You can never, ever undo that because we don't have expungement here or I'd hire one of those attorney's to do something about it.

Were you guilty of the thing you pled to?

Nope, I was overcharged and intimidated into pleading guilty to a "lesser charge" that wouldn't have had legs had we gone to trial.

Were you guilty of the thing you would have gone to trial over?

Nope, but there is no way to prove if that's true or not, to you. You have no clue, would argue up and down, despite reality, like you generally do nowadays and nothing would change.

At best I should have been charged with a misdemeanor. They wanted to the felony conviction, and they got it by intimidating an 18 year old kid into pleading guilty just to get out of jail. Get out of your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ youtube court videos and listen to some real talk about what actually happens during the process. You might possibly learn something about the real court system in the US.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Plea Bargains are a declaration of bankruptcy of a Justice System, an open acknowledgment that the Judiciary is not capable to do its job.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

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.

To be fair UK judges are most often selected based on their connections, yes judges will be occasionally picked based on knowledge or ability, but being second cousin to a Baronet is still a better qualification.

 

[theprestige]

Yup, unfortunately in North Dakota once you plead guilty it's over. You can never, ever undo that because we don't have expungement here or I'd hire one of those attorney's to do something about it.


Nope, I was overcharged and intimidated into pleading guilty to a "lesser charge" that wouldn't have had legs had we gone to trial.


Nope, but there is no way to prove if that's true or not, to you. You have no clue, would argue up and down, despite reality, like you generally do nowadays and nothing would change.

At best I should have been charged with a misdemeanor. They wanted to the felony conviction, and they got it by intimidating an 18 year old kid into pleading guilty just to get out of jail. Get out of your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ youtube court videos and listen to some real talk about what actually happens during the process. You might possibly learn something about the real court system in the US.

What was the misdemeanor, if you don't mind me asking.

And what was the felony you pled to instead?

 

[plague311]

What was the misdemeanor, if you don't mind me asking.

And what was the felony you pled to instead?

I'll probably keep that information to myself. It's not really relevant as we can go out and find a million different cases where someone plead guilty or was manipulated to signing false confessions, etc. My personal situation is just one of many.

 

[Planigale]

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.

There is no UK law. Scotland has a separate legal system. Welsh and Northern Irish law is essentially identical to English law.

In general the English system is that you either admit to a particular crime, go to court plead guilty, defence and prosecution have an opportunity to make a case for particularly aggravating or remitting factors, and the victims in more serious cases get to make an impact statement. Then the judge will decide on a sentence. The prosecutor cannot agree a sentence before hand, the defence may seek an indication from the judge about a likely sentence on agreed facts, which may influence a decision to plead guilty. Rarely judges refuse to accept a guilty plea, one instance is if the accused is overcharged, e.g. charged for murder (and pled guilty) where on the facts the correct charge would be a lesser one of manslaughter, another is where facts are disputed and an abbreviated 'Newton trial' on the facts may take place, the facts will then influence sentencing, e.g. if provocation is argued, but guilt accepted. An early plea of guilt will result in most cases in a reduction in sentence, but not always.

What is not allowed in England is a reduction in charge. In the US the prosecutor may threaten to charge for capital homicide but accept a plea deal for homicide 3 with a maximum ten year sentence. The innocent person who pleads not guilty is executed, the guilty person gets <10 years. The difference between what is charged if going to trial and what is offered if pleading guilty can be very substantial in the US.

The caution given on arrest in England includes
'You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.' Suspects have the right to remain silent, but they are warned during the police caution or during special cautions of possible adverse inferences being drawn should they choose to exercise that right. These may be in terms of failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) section 36(opens an external website in the same tab)) or failure or refusal to account for presence at a particular place (CJPOA section 37(opens an external website in the same tab)).
The Judge and the Jury are allowed to draw an adverse inference from a failure to disclose information and evidence at the time of interview by the polic. It should be noted the protections for a suspect undergoing interview by the police are much greater in England than the US.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-interviewing/investigative-interviewing

https://www.fis-international.com/assets/Uploads/resources/PEACE-A-Different-Approach.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6580543083ba38000de1b792/PACE+Code+C+2023.pdf

In Scotland a plea deal similar to that in the US may be entered into, with the defence offering to plead guilty to a lesser offence, this is not allowed in England.

 

[Planigale]

To be fair UK judges are most often selected based on their connections, yes judges will be occasionally picked based on knowledge or ability, but being second cousin to a Baronet is still a better qualification.

This is nonsense. Any evidence?

The connections I would accept, to an extent. Judges are usually chosen from barristers practicing within the field. Being recognised as a sound opinion is important, to a very great extent judges cannot be seen as politically active in the UK, so barristers who are seen as being an active member of a political party could not become judges. Prospective judges have to be recommended by members of the bar, so legal connections are important. Remember there are many fields of judges, family law, civil law, tax, employment etc.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My view is this: If you plead guilty to a particular charge, you should get the exact same sentence as if you plead not guilty to that same charge and then lose at trial.

The UK system enshrines all the same perversions of justice as a plea deal, without any of the benefits to the accused.

I understand your view. I also understand the reasoning in sometimes (not always) providing a lighter sentence for a guilty plea. First off, let's be clear that virtually all sentences in the US have a range, and the judge chooses a sentence that they believe best fits the circumstance. So for any particular violation, the sentence can range from a slap on the wrist to a life-changing length of imprisonment, and anything in between.

To some extent, the perceived remorse of the accused plays a part in the sentencing. Someone who his and kills someone with their car while texting is going to fall into the category of reckless manslaughter, for example. If Alex kills someone while negligently texting, and is perceived to be genuinely sorrowful about it, and to have a real understanding of the horror of their actions, we might reasonably believe that Alex is very likely to have learned from this event, and is far less likely to repeat such behavior in the future. If Pat, on the other hand, seems completely unbothered by having caused someone's death, and doesn't seem to give a crap about it and shows no remorse at all, we might reasonably believe that Pat has not learned anything from it and thus is at a higher risk of repeating their offense in the future. I understand that you may disagree - but to me as well as many others, the degree to which we believe a person is likely to repeat the same criminal activity in the future is an element in what we feel is an appropriate sentence. Generally speaking, if I believe the person has learned from their mistake, they still need to pay their debt but the punitive aspect is a bit lower. So I would likely support a lesser (but still reasonable) sentence for them. If I believe they aren't going to change their ways, I'd likely support a harsher (but still reasonable) sentence.

For most people, owning up to wrongdoing at the forefront is indicative of integrity and accountability. Someone who pleads guilty from the outset is arguably displaying integrity and accountability for their actions - and that suggests that they're less likely to repeat the behavior in the future. To me, it seems reasonable in many cases to allow a lesser (but still reasonable) sentence for copping to it.

That said... there are also some crimes that I don't think should allow any lessening of sentence. Some I think shouldn't have any forgiveness at all, and I'm not ethically opposed to capital punishment.

 

[Planigale]

My view is this: If you plead guilty to a particular charge, you should get the exact same sentence as if you plead not guilty to that same charge and then lose at trial.

The UK system enshrines all the same perversions of justice as a plea deal, without any of the benefits to the accused.

In the US a rapist might agree to plead guilty to a lesser offence e.g. unlawful restraint and get a non-custodial sentence, and is never convicted of rape. In England pleading guilty is considered as a mitigating factor that will result in reduction of sentence from the standard. The consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors is the normal process of decoding on the approp[riate sentence for an offence. So the rapist will still be convicted of rape but the sentence will be less than if found guilty after a trial. I think the US is a more perverse system in that by pleading guilty to a lesser non-sexual offence, the victim is denied justice and a sex offender avoids going on the sex offenders registry. In England the offence is the same whether pleading guilty or innocent, the crime is not adjusted to fit the criminal, just the penalty.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/baylor-rape-case-plea-deal/index.html

 

[JayUtah]

I think the US is a more perverse system in that by pleading guilty to a lesser non-sexual offence, the victim is denied justice and a sex offender avoids going on the sex offenders registry. In England the offence is the same whether pleading guilty or innocent, the crime is not adjusted to fit the criminal, just the penalty.

That's very much a concern. But mitigating this is the factor mentioned above, whereby prosecutors generally overcharge the defendant regardless of the evidence, understanding that the case will likely be plea-bargained down. Someone might be charge with rape who really only did commit a lesser offense. That makes for a rather ballsy option of taking an overcharged case to court and possibly getting an acquittal, since the prosecutor won't be able to marshal the evidence for a conviction on the charge. I've seen cases literally go up to the wall clock moment of trial for the prosecutor to back down, reduce the charge, and settle for something like a plea in abeyance.

That raises the broader issue of whether such gamesmanship is appropriate to a fair system of criminal justice. As the world has clearly seen, the ability to hire an expensive lawyer who will bog the court down with legalisms can effectively put a person above the law. The notion that the rich get a different kind of justice at law than the poor is something we've previously debated here, and which remains a sore point for some.

 

[PitPat]

That's very much a concern. But mitigating this is the factor mentioned above, whereby prosecutors generally overcharge the defendant regardless of the evidence, understanding that the case will likely be plea-bargained down. Someone might be charge with rape who really only did commit a lesser offense. That makes for a rather ballsy option of taking an overcharged case to court and possibly getting an acquittal, since the prosecutor won't be able to marshal the evidence for a conviction on the charge. I've seen cases literally go up to the wall clock moment of trial for the prosecutor to back down, reduce the charge, and settle for something like a plea in abeyance.

That raises the broader issue of whether such gamesmanship is appropriate to a fair system of criminal justice. As the world has clearly seen, the ability to hire an expensive lawyer who will bog the court down with legalisms can effectively put a person above the law. The notion that the rich get a different kind of justice at law than the poor is something we've previously debated here, and which remains a sore point for some.

That's also another good point. In US, money can buy you acquittal - not too hard to find acquittals for otherwise pretty clear cut cases. (Thinking Durst acquittal in Corpus Christi). It sounds kind of like elitist culturalism, but attorneys everywhere know jury pools' demographics. I'd say voir dire is as much or more important than the facts of the cases themselves.

As said in another thread about juries, one of the main factors is using voir dire to set up the best possible circumstances. And it works on both sides.