Question for any attorneys here

[Courtesy Flush]

I watched a documentary this weekend about two men who were accused of hundreds of counts of child molestation. It was from the early 80s when there was a lot of hysteria about ritual child abusers in day care centers, etc.

One of the accused seemed to be innocent. He eventually succumbed to pressure to plead to a lesser charge, and spent several years in jail.

The problem that I had was this: He was told that if he went to a jury trial he'd face hundreds of charges and a lifetime in jail. If he'd plead guilty he'd face less time. This is a common scenario that we hear about often.

I understand the need to oil the wheels of justice with plea bargains, but it seems to me there's another side of the coin. The Constitution (which was still intact in those days) grants us the right to a jury trial. It seems that a system that imposes disproportionately greater penalties on people who exercise their right does, in fact, deny that right to a trial by placing undue pressure on the defendant. "Exercise your rights -- triple your jail time." How can we say we have the right, when the system puts a gun to our heads and forces us not to use it?

It also seems that this process compromises your chance of an appeal, as you'd hardly be able to appeal a decision after pleading guilty. (Don't know if that's true, though.)

I don't know anything about the law (as I just proved), so please tell me what the experts say on this matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capturing_the_Friedmans

[Lisa0825]

1. Not an attorney, but I remember that case.

I remember the almost daily news updates about it... it just kept getting worse and worse... satanic rituals, etc. That poor family went theough absolutel hell.

I had never thought about plea bargaining from the perspective that you present. Very interesting point.

[midnight]

2. That is such a great question. I too would like to know.

My instincts tell me it is all about money and or favors and little to do with justice.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. So your question is: Why do plea bargains exist?

Your perspective is wrong. People who go to trial are not being penalized; people who accept a plea bargain are being rewarded.

The reasons why not to go to trial are many. In this situation, it could have been that the case was shaky and the prosecutors were willing to get a win on a lesser charge than take the chance of losing on a larger charge. It could have been that the media circus was something the state wanted very much to avoid and were willing to decrease the charges in order to avoid a trial, or perhaps the state was reluctant to put the child witnesses and their families the trauma of recounting their stories with the whole world watching. It could have been in exchange for information on other alleged activities that the defendant had. We don't know, as the details of why a bargain was made are covered by priviledge and so not a matter of public record.

[Courtesy Flush]

4. Those are valid reasons

But in this particular case it seems that the plea bargain was used to coerce an innocent man into confessing. There was great pressure to get prosecutions on this case, but not a lot of pressure to get at the truth. Having a "shaky case" is the prosecutor's problem. Not the defendant's.

It's hard for me to see it as a "reward" for an innocent man to go to prison for years.

But even for those who may have committed a crime, to reward someone for surrendering their rights is not much different than punishing them for exercising them.

Edit: Let me say again. It "appeared" the man was innocent. I won't re-word my statement above, but I should not have declared him innocent. I know how media can sway opinions, and I don't want to claim full knowledge based on watching a documentary.

[theboss]

5. You are operating under the assumption that if they go to trial, they will certainly lose

It's not a matter of accept a plea bargain for 5 years or accept a verdict at trial for 10.

It's a choice of get 5 or roll the dice. At trial you may get 10 or you may get zero. How good is their case? How good is your attorney?

People have signed false confessions for any number of reasons. Coercion. Fear. Guilt. Confusion. Protection of another. But the state generally has to operate under the assumption that no rational human being would confess to a crime they did not commit.

The simple fact is, without plea bargains, our criminal courts would currently be trying cases from 1991. It's essential to the process.

[Courtesy Flush]

7. Good response

I suppose the real problem was with the defense attorney.

[theboss]

8. A defense attorney can often end up as a jury

Unless you are one of the high-end defense attorneys in a major city, the only way a defense attorney makes money is through volume. A personal injury lawyer can make a fortune off one case. A defense attorney generally charges a flat fee because - here's a shocker - most criminals are poor.

So...a defense attorney's job is often to get the best deal possible for a client without the necessity of a trial. But this can lead to a lot of undue influence. It's a tough situation.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. The prosecution starts with the assumption that the defendant is guilty

That is their role in our adversarial system. And you will note that this was the first reason as to why they might have offered a plea bargain: they were willing to take a sure win on a lesser charge than take the risk that a jury will hand them a loss on a greater charge.

Now, if the prosecutors knew that he was not guilty -- if, for example, they had stronger evidence that implicated somone else than they had evidence implicating him -- then the prosecution committed a criminal act. This is what happened a few years ago with the... I think it was McMartin convictions: the prosecutors knew that the evidence was made up just to get convictions, but went along with the game. The problem is, you have to prove that the prosecutors knew, and that is very difficult to do.

As for why the man might have accepted the plea rather than fight for his day in court, I can only speculate. Maybe he actually was guilty of one or two of the charges, and figured that, given the massive hysteria of the day, the jury would therefore assume he was also guilty of the other hundred plus and punish him accordingly. Maybe he figured that the publicity of a trial would brand him forever as "that guy charged with molesting hundreds of children" and that by avoid trial he could avoid the worst of that fall-out. Then again, maybe he was effectively tortured and agreed to the plea bargain only after being kept awake for 36 hours straight, or after being denied food and water. Again, the how and why of a plea bargain is considered priviledged information, which means lawyers are not allowed to discuss the matter, much less enter the details into the public record.

[Courtesy Flush]

6. One more observation

Your statements presume that the defendant is guilty. I'm talking about situations in which people are pressured into accepting penalties for crimes they did not commit. By extension, I suppose that applies to all defendants, as they're innocent until proven guilty, but when innocent people go to prison, something is wrong.

There have been several people exonerated by DNA evidence in recent years. Some (I'm sure) have pleaded guilty due to similar plea bargains. There's something grossly wrong with that.

[JDPriestly]

9. It is difficult to disprove an accusation even when it is false.

That is why we place the burden on the prosecution to prove allegations "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a case concerning child abuse in which there has been a lot of negative publicity and emotional clamor, the defendant will be encouraged to weigh the benefits of accepting a plea bargain which not only means a shorter sentence but an end to the horrible cost of dealing with the pressure, the publicity, the costs of mounting a defense, the psychological pressure, the depression, the loss of years of his or her life . . . . So, the defendant may just figure a few years in jail are preferable to years of agony, accusations, stress on his or her entire family, no job, no means of support, legal expenses, no health insurance . . . .

Do you see what I mean.

The sad thing is that when an innocent defendant accepts a plea bargain, he or she not only gives up the right to a trial, but also the right to an appeal.

Plea bargains certainly relieve congestion in the courts -- but they result in prisons filled with people, some of whom have done absolutely nothing wrong. The expense of maintaining prisons is one of the reasons that California, for instance, has so little to spend on education and health care and other things that we need.

We need to find better evidence based solutions for preventing crime. That is what we need to do.

By the way, one of the problems with plea bargains when the defendant did not commit the crime is that the actual criminal, assuming a crime took place, my never be apprehended. The case is closed.

[treestar]

11. It's because there are too many charges and too many crimes

The system is inundated and we are not willing to expand it with more courthouses, yet over the years, we criminalize more and more behavior. We need to de-criminalize drugs and get back to the basics - the only criminal charges should be for the basic, real crimes.

Trials take even longer, too, when we add issues like enhanced punishments, and now we need "experts" to prove just about anything. We need to exercise more common sense when on juries. The side with the money starts trying to have "better" proof with experts, and then the other side is forced to hire an expert also, and they disagree, leaving the jury to try to figure out a dispute between experts.

[dark forest]

12. This is the kind of

thing that it takes real courage to do the right thing.

If you are innocent, never, never, never plead guilty to a lie.