>>It seems that if you are a prosecutor trying to screw people this is a
>>pretty powerful position from which to do it very effectively. These seem
>>to be the people most often rewarded in the DA's office. The flip side
>>seems to be that as a prosecutor if you are genuinely trying to help
>>people in trying circumstances this also a pretty powerful position from
>>which to do some good. JT
>
>The fundamental problem is sytematic. The prosecutor's job should not be
>to determine penalties, yet perversions of the criminal law such as plea
>bargaining and mandatory sentencing have just that effect. BB
The problem are certainly systemic but plea bargains do some good as well as bad. She's worked pleas that kept individuals from doing time when it would have extremely detrimental to keeping their family intact. You can't remove the human element from it. Someone will always get to determine guilt or innocence or what exactly to charge someone with or some other aspect of criminal prosecutions. Would it be preferable for a person to face a trial in front of a judge when they would rather plea guilty to a slightly lesser crime and save everyone involved the trouble and expense of a trial? JT
>The US system is especially repulsive due to the fact that the
>professional ethics of prosecutors seem to allow them to charge people
>with crimes more serious than they actually believe they are guilty of, as
>a form of leverage to coerce guilty pleas to less serious charges. BB
As I said it has good effects and bad. I don't know of a way to get rid of the bad and keep the good. It is an imperfect system, just like exists everywhere. I don't know that that the US system is more repulsive than say the Australian or Japanese system. I'm certain I could find terrible cases of injustice in every country. I do think the US system has serious problems but until cultural attitudes change the system is, to my mind, a reflection of the dominant cultures desires. JT
>This is a monstrous practice, but the root of the problem lies in
>permitting prosecutors to have any say in sentencing, through secret
>back-room deals. Just on principle, it is taking the adversarial legal
>system too far when the two can haggle over choice of crime and
>sentencing. This is, to my mind, corrupt. No doubt it also has the effect
>of many crimes going unpunished, as well as many innocent people being
>coerced to plead guilty, depending on the amount of "justice" an accused
>person can afford. BB
"Many innocent people being coerced to plead guilty" seems like an inaccurate way to word this. More like impoverished people given unfair choices that wealthy individuals are not subject to. The chances of an innocent person being charged is pretty remote, but the more criminal behavior you define as such and the more prosecutions you follow through with the greater the likely hood that this will happen becomes. However most people commit multiple offenses before they are ever prosecuted for even one offense. Selective enforcement seems like a bigger issue in my mind and that happens everywhere but admittedly is a big problem here. The idea that prosecutors have complete say in sentencing is incorrect. They have a lot of latitude in what they can charge someone with but can't just make up any charge they wish. It isn't possible for a prosecutor to have no knowledge of potential sentencing when deciding what to charge someone with. That is true everywhere. How would it be possible for a prosecutor to have no idea what penalties exist for different crimes? It is the selective enforcement issue that still seems to be the larger problem, but I'm not a lawyer so I have to take my cues from the lawyers that I know who are decent people and whose values I generally agree with. No one can be fully informed on everything. JT
>> She handles way too many cases to give everyone a really fair shake
>> however, a problem she readily concedes but has no practical solution
>> for. Prosecutors it would seem are also given pretty skimpy resources in
>> order to bring about the same effect as skimping on funds for the PD's
>> office. Process poor people quickly through the system before anyone
>> really has a chance to find out much about the case. JT
>
>Yes, obviously a large part of the problem is that governments are trying
>to do justice on the cheap. But, as Doug said on another issue, you only
>get what you pay for and justice costs more than what Americans are
>prepared to pay apparently. That's a problem everywhere actually, but
>especially chronic in the US.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
Since many US citizens wrongly believe their country has the best of everything, legal system included, why would they want to spend more money improving it? Until you can begin to convince masses of people of the unfairness of a system you don't have much chance for change.
John Thornton