The vast majority of criminal cases end in plea bargains, a new report finds(npr.org)
npr.org
The vast majority of criminal cases end in plea bargains, a new report finds
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice
29 comments
Or, have an all or nothing conviction standard. Either the defendant is convicted of all charges, or is fully acquitted if even one charge is found not guilty. That would force prosecutors to only bring on their strongest case.
While a valid, this one has, I feel, less chance of getting through the political machine and ever happening. It’s too easy to oppose it in bad faith with arguments like “they want murderers to go free because we can’t prove they <insert a derisive related minor charge here, like stealing, or jaywalking>
It’s harder to argue against “not bringing bullshit charges” even though in practice the outcome of your version would simply be the lawyers/prosecutors don’t bring bullshit, it’s the political downside that, I suspect, would doom it.
It’s harder to argue against “not bringing bullshit charges” even though in practice the outcome of your version would simply be the lawyers/prosecutors don’t bring bullshit, it’s the political downside that, I suspect, would doom it.
Different charges have different standards and language so this makes zero sense
Is this news at this point? Last year there was a whole episode of Last Week Tonight with main subject "Police interrogations and false confession" [1] documenting exactly how innocent people are coerced into guilty pleas.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4
> according to a new report from the American Bar Association
Not attacking or defending plea bargains, but it is only natural than an association of lawyers would prefer the lengthiest procedures that give the most billable work to lawyers.
Not attacking or defending plea bargains, but it is only natural than an association of lawyers would prefer the lengthiest procedures that give the most billable work to lawyers.
I would be surprised if 1% of these cases involved defense attorneys billing by the hour.
To be more specific I'd bet the majority of these are public defenders. I'd bet people who can afford their own attorneys are far more likely to have charges dropped or go to court than the average case.
In some states the average public defender can be taking on case loads of 400 cases in a year. Without the resources to hire expert witnesses, or the time to do a deep dive into a case, the most logical thing you can do as a public defender is take the plea bargain and minimize how much time your client will spend incarcerated. It’s a system of coercion. The DA throws spaghetti at the wall, we overwork public defenders almost forcing them to recommend the defendants plea out, and as a result, incarcerate more people than any other nation. It’s sick
I wish I could remember which book I read it in, but in one counties lawyers joined together and refused all plea bargains. It almost instantly collapsed the legal system in their county and caused a multi year backlog. Our legal system is no longer setup to provide all people the right to a fair trial, we simply don’t provide the resources for it anymore.
I wish I could remember which book I read it in, but in one counties lawyers joined together and refused all plea bargains. It almost instantly collapsed the legal system in their county and caused a multi year backlog. Our legal system is no longer setup to provide all people the right to a fair trial, we simply don’t provide the resources for it anymore.
A slightly less "new" report from a 1931 issue of the American Political Science Review:
Recent crime surveys have shown that the majority of contested felony cases are never tried in open court, being settled instead by the striking of a “bargain” between the defendant and the prosecuting officer. Administrative discretion has thus largely supplanted judge and jury alike. The practice has been severely criticized by Professor Moley, who characterizes it as “ psychologically more akin to a game of poker than to a process of justice,” being “an attempt to get as much as possible from an unwilling giver” rather than “a search for truth.” In view of the technicalities and delay that were permitted to develop in connection with jury trials, the utilization of some such avenue of escape would seem to have been inevitable. The practice may be expected to develop still further unless judicial procedure is improved to a point where a trial becomes an efficient means of disposing of contested criminal cases.
In most jurisdictions, the only alternative to such a compromise agreement has been a jury trial. Trial by a judge alone, the right to a jury being waived, has been regarded as of doubtful constitutionality. Recent decisions of the federal Supreme Court and of the supreme court of Illinois, sustaining such non-jury trials even in the absence of statutory authorization, have gone far toward dispelling this doubt, and warrant an examination of the practical working of the waiver plan in those jurisdictions where it has been given a trial.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...
Recent crime surveys have shown that the majority of contested felony cases are never tried in open court, being settled instead by the striking of a “bargain” between the defendant and the prosecuting officer. Administrative discretion has thus largely supplanted judge and jury alike. The practice has been severely criticized by Professor Moley, who characterizes it as “ psychologically more akin to a game of poker than to a process of justice,” being “an attempt to get as much as possible from an unwilling giver” rather than “a search for truth.” In view of the technicalities and delay that were permitted to develop in connection with jury trials, the utilization of some such avenue of escape would seem to have been inevitable. The practice may be expected to develop still further unless judicial procedure is improved to a point where a trial becomes an efficient means of disposing of contested criminal cases.
In most jurisdictions, the only alternative to such a compromise agreement has been a jury trial. Trial by a judge alone, the right to a jury being waived, has been regarded as of doubtful constitutionality. Recent decisions of the federal Supreme Court and of the supreme court of Illinois, sustaining such non-jury trials even in the absence of statutory authorization, have gone far toward dispelling this doubt, and warrant an examination of the practical working of the waiver plan in those jurisdictions where it has been given a trial.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-s...
The cost of a trial is significant for the state. They generally do not charge people unless they have substantial, if not overwhelming evidence. The sentencing guidelines are known to both sides. So a deal that skips a trial in exchange for 75% of the expected sentence is a win-win for both sides.
> They generally do not charge people unless they have substantial, if not overwhelming evidence.
Well that's simply untrue. Very often prosecutors will overcharge to force a plea deal on the defendant who doesn't want to risk it, and overwhelmed public defenders don't have the resources to properly examine the evidence or collect their own evidence in defence of their clients. And often it's a fraction of the sentence, not 75%, because charges are often dropped as part of the deal.
Well that's simply untrue. Very often prosecutors will overcharge to force a plea deal on the defendant who doesn't want to risk it, and overwhelmed public defenders don't have the resources to properly examine the evidence or collect their own evidence in defence of their clients. And often it's a fraction of the sentence, not 75%, because charges are often dropped as part of the deal.
I have always thought what might happen if everyone demanded their day in court and pled, not guilty. Would those cases grind to a halt, and many dropped because of speedy trial rights?
Would the justice system simply expand dramatically?
Would the justice system simply expand dramatically?
I would wager that most people that choose to avoid trial because they feel openly threatened by the legal system. In their minds, it becomes a life or death decision, and the system puts enormous pressure convincing people that a trial would be a game of Russian Roulette. If more people started demanding full trials, the pressure would be increased.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
I believe the US is the only country with plea bargains. I know that in some European countries they are considered a violation of human rights (given the asymmetry between the parties).
30 minutes at your local courthouse would have told you this.
Guess what, the vast majority of civil cases end in settlement as well.
Guess what, the vast majority of civil cases end in settlement as well.
Cause? Too many laws?
For which civil or criminal?
For civil it’s largely because each side’s evidence must be disclosed to the other prior to trial. Therefore, the attorneys can pretty effectively estimate the probabilities and expected outcomes. Given these estimates, the two sides typically split the baby and settle somewhere in a reasonable range.
For criminal it’s because 99.9999% of the accused are guilty and everyone knows it. Juries don’t appreciate having a week or more of their lives wasted for some defense attorney to try to argue that the clear video of their client stealing the car isn’t them, or was a setup, or whatever.
Sensible criminals take whatever deal they can get rather than risking pissing off a jury.
For civil it’s largely because each side’s evidence must be disclosed to the other prior to trial. Therefore, the attorneys can pretty effectively estimate the probabilities and expected outcomes. Given these estimates, the two sides typically split the baby and settle somewhere in a reasonable range.
For criminal it’s because 99.9999% of the accused are guilty and everyone knows it. Juries don’t appreciate having a week or more of their lives wasted for some defense attorney to try to argue that the clear video of their client stealing the car isn’t them, or was a setup, or whatever.
Sensible criminals take whatever deal they can get rather than risking pissing off a jury.
Sadly, this is not surprising at all given how the “justice” system operates in the US. It’s no wonder the US has such an enormous prison population and why so many people can’t get a job.
I used to agree, but how do you square that with articles like this: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/mayor-eric-adams-nypd-r...
>"In New York City, we've identified 716 individuals, 716 individuals, who are responsible for approximately 30 percent of the shooting incidents since 2021," NYPD Chief of Crime Control Strategies Michael Lipetri said.
>10 men have been arrested 485 times since the change in bail law.
Are you sure we're locking up too many people? Or is it that we live in a country with a lot of crime? I don't really know anymore.
>"In New York City, we've identified 716 individuals, 716 individuals, who are responsible for approximately 30 percent of the shooting incidents since 2021," NYPD Chief of Crime Control Strategies Michael Lipetri said.
>10 men have been arrested 485 times since the change in bail law.
Are you sure we're locking up too many people? Or is it that we live in a country with a lot of crime? I don't really know anymore.
In New York, as in many places, crime is still at a pretty historic low. Depending on your sources and your categories, down as much as 50-75% since peaks in the 80s and 90s.
It's definitely not that we currently live in a country with rampant criminality.
Adding onto that, Google says the NYPD budget is over 5 billion dollars a year. If there really are less than 1000 people responsible for so much violent crime, this seems like institutional ineptitude on a pretty staggering scale.
It's definitely not that we currently live in a country with rampant criminality.
Adding onto that, Google says the NYPD budget is over 5 billion dollars a year. If there really are less than 1000 people responsible for so much violent crime, this seems like institutional ineptitude on a pretty staggering scale.
It's up ~40% in the last 3 years.
> If there really are less than 1000 people responsible for so much violent crime, this seems like institutional ineptitude on a pretty staggering scale.
They arrest them, but the state lets them out. A lot of state reps are openly against any form of prison/jail for criminals - this is what those policies produce.
> If there really are less than 1000 people responsible for so much violent crime, this seems like institutional ineptitude on a pretty staggering scale.
They arrest them, but the state lets them out. A lot of state reps are openly against any form of prison/jail for criminals - this is what those policies produce.
Wikipedia has a telling graph of the murder rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Murders....
40% up from pandemic lows sounds concerning, but we're still down near the bottom of a 30 year decline.
And from: https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/stats.htm, NYC had anywhere from 120,000 to nearly 300,000 arrests each year from 2012 to 2021. 10 people abusing bail reform? 716 shooters? These numbers are many orders of magnitude lower than the number of people affected by crime and the criminal justice system in New York every year.
40% up from pandemic lows sounds concerning, but we're still down near the bottom of a 30 year decline.
And from: https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/stats.htm, NYC had anywhere from 120,000 to nearly 300,000 arrests each year from 2012 to 2021. 10 people abusing bail reform? 716 shooters? These numbers are many orders of magnitude lower than the number of people affected by crime and the criminal justice system in New York every year.
_"They arrest them, but the state lets them out. A lot of state reps are openly against any form of prison/jail for criminals - this is what those policies produce."_
I call bullshit. You've been watching too much right-wing propaganda. Name some of these reps.
I call bullshit. You've been watching too much right-wing propaganda. Name some of these reps.
I don't know about state representatives, but Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, is explicitly against zealous prosecution of violent crimes (e.g., armed burglary) that don't result in actual physical harm. He was later forced to backpedal on that position.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/manhattan-da-alvin-brag...
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-manhattan-da-alvin-b...
As a prosecutor, he also engaged in racially-motivated prosecution of a clear case of self-defense until public pressure forced him to back off.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-video-shows-girlfr...
NYC officials are pro-criminal, anti-everyday person.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/manhattan-da-alvin-brag...
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-manhattan-da-alvin-b...
As a prosecutor, he also engaged in racially-motivated prosecution of a clear case of self-defense until public pressure forced him to back off.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-video-shows-girlfr...
NYC officials are pro-criminal, anti-everyday person.
> but how do you square that with articles like this
One city having a bail problem does not invalidate the observation that the US has an abnormally large prison population for a developed country [1].
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-fiv...
One city having a bail problem does not invalidate the observation that the US has an abnormally large prison population for a developed country [1].
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-fiv...
I actually think it’s part of a vicious cycle— putting people in jail makes it much more likely that they’ll commit another crime. Not only because of who they are around, and the circumstances of their imprisonment, but because of the many opportunities closed off to them after being incarcerated.
Further, I think that extreme inequality breeds crime, especially violent crime. This is a country with the most extreme inequality in modern history.
Further, I think that extreme inequality breeds crime, especially violent crime. This is a country with the most extreme inequality in modern history.
If the police knows that, they should be able to prove that.
1. Limiting the 'trial penalty' to 25% or so of the sentence 2. Banning pleas that involve dropping charges in exchange for pleading to others 3. Proper funding for public defenders
The first and second are to solve the problem that prosecutors overcharge and defence lawyers advise innocent clients to plead guilty rather than risk significant jail time fight bogus charges. This seems to be a common tactic by prosecutors in the US and it should simply be banned through these mechanisms.
Of course the other problem is that people can't defend themselves against bogus charges because the cost is ruinous, so proper funding for public defenders is important.