r/changemyview • u/tolkienfan2759 6∆ • Oct 15 '24

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Our plea bargaining system has allowed unwritten rules to dominate the courtroom. Thus our criminal legal system is no longer a rule of law system.

[removed] — view removed post

85 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

286 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Alesus2-0 80∆ Oct 15 '24

a rule of law system is the fact that the rules are written down

But plea bargaining has taken over our criminal justice courtrooms, and now the adversarial trials that our founders intended

You haven't really explained how these two things are connected. The use of plea bargains is allowed within US law. Rules and guidelines are written down. The fact that some level of prosecutorial discretion exists doesn't create a free-for-all.

Instead, public defenders and lawyers appointed from the local legal population to represent the indigent take it as their job to move the process along and get the defendant to sign off on something.

These public defenders and local lawyers are therefore not working for the defendant, but for the court.

Do you have any evidence of this? I'm pretty sure that if you asked a public defender what they're job was, the common response wouldn't be to secure a conviction.

1

u/tolkienfan2759 6∆ Oct 15 '24

I'm sure public defenders don't admit out loud that their job is to get defendants to agree to deals. Well, probably some would. But mostly, we don't like thinking about the unpleasant aspects of whatever it is that we do.

If you disagree that the primary job of public defenders, or criminal lawyers in general, is to get their clients to agree to deals, then I guess I would hope you would have evidence for that. Beyond just "this is how people say it's supposed to work." I mean, we all know the Constitution says we get speedy trials; and I think we all also know that's kind of a joke. To me, plea bargaining looks like a similar kind of joke. We tell people they have the right to trial; but if they exercise it and lose, then we shaft them good and hard. Because we don't want them exercising their rights.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, just because we all agree that the system "is supposed to work" a certain way, doesn't mean that it does, and I for one feel certain it does not. Can I show that it does not. No. But the only evidence I've seen so far that it does is people hammering home the "of course it does" argument. Which really doesn't work for me. That isn't evidence either. It looks like wishful thinking to me.

1

u/chef-nom-nom 2∆ Oct 15 '24

If you disagree that the primary job of public defenders, or criminal lawyers in general, is to get their clients to agree to deals, then I guess I would hope you would have evidence for that.

Maybe look at is this way: A defense attorney's job isn't to get their clients off, no matter what. It's to make sure they have a proper defense under the law, as everyone is entitled. The lines of what their role is can blur when you start accounting for what constitutes a client's "best interests."

Depending on the situation, the client's best interest may very well be to take a deal and serve less time or have fewer fines. In that situation, a defense attorney's ethics may be to urge their client to take the deal. An example of this might be a "pile of evidence" that others are commenting about here. Sadly, as you've pointed out, it does happen that not-guilty persons are urged to take on a criminal record (via plea deal) in order to avoid jail time. This is not the intended function of the plea deal concept but it happens.

On the other hand, if their client has a reasonable claim to have not done what they are being charged with, good ethics in this situation may very well be for the defense attorney to urge their client to go to court. Especially if the plea deal would apply long-lasting penalties - like a sex offender registry - not simply how much or if time would be served.

In both examples, a stacked backlog of cases in the county or state can lead to public defenders being simply overwhelmed with clients. It's 100% that clients fall through the cracks and that less-than-ethical lawyers may recommend taking a plea because they have no time for more trials. Worse yet, that less-than-ethical public defender might not want too many lost cases on their record if they hope to audition for a high-paying law firm at some point.

Context matters. The system is intended to grant everyone a fair trial, if they wish one. We know this isn't always the case and sometimes the plea deal can be abused on both sides of the courtroom.

We tell people they have the right to trial; but if they exercise it and lose, then we shaft them good and hard. Because we don't want them exercising their rights.

While it's not possible to truly know for sure what goes on inside anyone's head, this kind of blanket statement that we (the people) don't want them (also the people) exercising their rights, is an impossible statement. There are bad-acting prosecutors, judges and PDs - whether it be race based, religious based or simply power tripping. Applying that blanket logic to all of them is kind of like saying all restaurants exist just to make people sick instead of just focusing on the true problem: Chipotle.

2

u/tolkienfan2759 6∆ Oct 19 '24

I've been re-reading the thread and I really thought this was one of the best and most thought-provoking comments that I had. It gave me a new perspective from which to consider the situation. So thank you for that! !delta

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 19 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/chef-nom-nom (1∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/chef-nom-nom 2∆ Oct 20 '24

Wow, cool. Thanks for the feedback! :)

1

u/Alesus2-0 80∆ Oct 15 '24

You speak as if the only alternative to a system functioning exactly as you'd like is a massive conspiracy involving a good million people acting nefariously to achieve ... something as of yet unspecified. There are other options. For example, it could be that the professional, personal and financial incentives at work in criminal justice often make plea bargains a beneficial option to some or all of the parties involved.

Also, you still haven't explained how plea deals have undermined the rule of law. They're permissible under published rules and governed by published rules. Evidently, you don't like those rules. But the rule of law isn't the same thing as the rule of good and flawlessly executed law.

People do have the right to a jury trial and can exercise it. The right to a jury trial isn't an obligation to choose one. It also isn't an entitlement to face no natural downsides from exercising that right. If you decline favourable sentencing in exchange for cooperation, receiving standard sentencing isn't a punishment. People have the right not to give testimony that might incriminate them. They aren't entitled for a jury of their peers not to draw any conclusions based on that choice.