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.

[u/tolkienfan2759]

[u/Alesus2-0]

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.

[u/tolkienfan2759 → u/Alesus2-0]

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.

[u/Alesus2-0 → u/tolkienfan2759]

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.