>Why shouldn't an admittance of guilt decrease one's penalty?
I wouldn't argue with that.
> It shows
>contrition and more importantly saves the state (that is, the people) a
>bundle of resources--which, if you didn't know, will always be finite.
>Perhaps it would be best to put murderers X, Y, and Z away for 25 years, but
>if offering them 20 year sentences will allow us to put more money into
>higher education (or any number of other worthy ends) we need to take that
>into account.
Plea bargaining isn't merely taking contrition into account though, is it? It is also a system where the very charge itself is open to negotiation. That is, if I agree to plead guilty to simple assault, the prosecutor agrees not to charge me with the more serious crime of attempted murder.
This happens all over the world to some extent. For instance I was prosecuted for poaching many years ago. I was charged with three offenses - discharging a firearm from a vehicle, discharging a firearm within 50 metres of a public road and hunting wallaby outside daylight hours. I copped to the two least serious offenses and the prosecutor didn't bother to pursue the other one.
But the penalties were determined in open court, there was never any question of arriving at a corrupt bargain with the prosecutor behind closed doors. The prosecutor didn't make any corrupt agreement with me not to pursue the other charge. This was a minor matter involving a fine and possible confiscation of my rifle (which I was spared) but due process is all the more important in cases where loss of liberty is threatened.
The thing is Luke, a guilty plea may be evidence of contrition, or at least acceptance of guilt. but not if the guilty plea is part of a "bargain". Still less if the guilty plea is coerced. Only if there are no strings attached.
And the thing is that we aren't talking about minor discounts in sentence in the US, from all accounts the penalties can be out of all proportion for those who refuse to be coerced to plead guilty. The draconian penalties being designed purely and simply as a big stick to coerce people to give up their right to a trial. This is simply inconsistent with the notion that accused criminals are getting the benefit of a sentence discounted for co-operation. At best, they are agreeing to "co-operate" on condition of lower sentence.
No contrition is evidenced in such a corrupt bargain. No sentencing judge in his right mind could ever come to the conclusion that such a person had earned any mercy. Just the opposite and what's more the prosecutor deserves to be jailed for perverting the course of justice.
This is quite different from the accused agreeing to co-operate, in the hope and even expectation that the court will show mercy. Due to the element of a pre-agreed "bargain" which is designed transfer the discretion in sentencing from the sentencing judge to the prosecutor.
At worst of course, plea bargaining is simply trial by blackmail. Investigation of crime, gathering evidence and testing the evidence in a court is replaced by a primitive system of threats and coercion.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas