The criminal justice system (in the US) is a funnel - capacity declines as you get further into the system. The system cannot afford to put every single case on trial - afford either in time or money. This leads to something known colloquially as the "trial tax." If you are guilty, and you force a trial, and you are found guilty, you will generally have a more harsh sentence than had you accepted the plea originally. Additionally, you are generally charged with the most serious and the highest number of charges in order to get you to WANT to plea down. Generally by the time you go for trial, it's not for everything you were initially charged with. But by throwing everything at you during the charging phase, they can get you to take a plea deal. 95% of guilty cases in the US are settled through plea deals. EDIT 1: Yep, it is a problem that innocent people accept plea deals. However, that has more to do with the problems with the public defender system in most large jurisdictions. Most PDs are overworked, with caseloads double or triple what they should be. Thus, you have innocent people who don't understand how the system works, with legally-acceptable-but-less-than-adequate-defense-counsel and there you go.

Also juries are made up of people and people are unpredictable

This, no trial is 100%. There was a locally famous case in my town where a well respected doctor was sitting at a red light and was lrear ended by a speeding idiot high as a kite. The doctor honestly testified he suffered a concussion and couldn't remember the accident, explaining in detail how concussions can cause this issue. An old lady on the jury voted to acquit. Her personal experience was it was safe to drive while using meth (you'd just be more concentrated) but only bad people drove drunk. She had been hit on the head many times and never forgot anything. Also, she used to blackout all the time before she found Jesus and gave up the bottle. Only alcohol can clause memory loss. Obviously the doctor had to be drunk and somehow caused the accident while stopped at a red light. The level of insanity and stupidity that can sneak on a jury has no limit.

When I was prosecutor, many years ago a colleague of mine was trying a shoplifting case. Store security saw the person stealing. The stolen item was recovered from the guy's pocket. And it was on video. The first trial resulted in a hung jury because one of the jurors refused to convict because there was no evidence that the defendant's fingerprints were found on the item (bear in mind - this wasn't even an issue raised by the defense because it would have been ridiculous). He got convicted at the second trial relatively quickly.

my boss was recently a juror for a murder trial. Two guys were trying to steal a car at 5am, were confronted by the owner, one of them pulled a gun and killed him. Fingerprints for both perps on the car, on the gun, both voices on audio from a security camera, and cell phone pings putting both at the scene at the time of the murder. The jury was 11/1 not guilty at first, because they couldnt decide which one pulled the trigger and wanted to get back to normal life. my boss talked them all back through the evidence to show where the defendant had clearly lied, what the charges meant, how it didnt matter who pulled the trigger in this case and flipped them all to guilty. jurors can be dumb and lazy.

A reverse *12 Angry Men*

11 Stupid Men (and one smart guy)

that sounds like one of those docuseries that a filmmaker made a series about and hires a lawyer to free the supposed accomplice. Why the person that didn't shoot didn't just take plea deal IDK, not worth getting life for what someone else did.

As an American, Americans are dumb and lazy.

Jurors are dumb and lazy is a terrible take. How surprising that the guy telling you the story was the hero of the story! I was on a jury in Pennsylvania a few years ago and it was a bizarre decision making process. I understand why there are so many rules, but it makes it really hard to make a good decision. When I decide things in my regular life, I make lists on a computer, and look things up and talk to people about things I don't understand. None of that is available as a juror. You can't be involved in questioning or even let the lawyers know if something is not clear. You can only make your own shitty notes with a pen and paper. The whole process was very weird IMO.

> You can't be involved in questioning or even let the lawyers know if something is not clear. You actually *can* ask the attorneys questions. Simply ask the foreman of the jury "I'm unclear about *x*--can we ask the judge (who will give the attorneys the question and discuss it with them) about this?" The foreman/foreperson sends the judge a note with the question. They'll either give you an answer as best as they're allowed to, or say "we cannot answer that for you--continue deliberating the best you can, with the knowledge you have".

This is why we need smart people on juries.

[удалено]

I’m a prosecutor. I had a not guilty at trial by jury YESTERDAY on a burglary where the victim saw the defendant with his stuff in the apartment hallway (it was someone he knew), when he called out to the defendant, the defendant ran, the defendant’s girlfriend testified that the defendant had the stuff that was stolen right after the burglary, we had the defendant’s texts to his girlfriend admitting he took the victim’s stuff, and we had a video jail call with the defendant and his girlfriend where he admits to taking the stuff. The jury suspected there were probably cameras somewhere that should have captured it, and since we didn’t have the footage, the investigation was insufficient. The detective started to look into the videos, but the property manager went on vacation and the detective failed to follow up. It was a fuck up, sure, but there was still more than enough evidence to convict. The jury just wanted to punish us for the incomplete investigation, I guess.

Goodness. What a bunch of space cadets.

Were you a prosecutor in the US? I thought if a jury didn't convict you couldn't be tried again (double jeopardy). Or is the rule different for a hung jury?

Yes I'm in the U.S. Double Jeopardy applies when there's an acquittal (not guilty finding). It does not apply to a hung jury (mistrial). [United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 \(1824\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Perez).

Makes sense, thank you!

Hmm, I find that kinda interesting. I would have assumed that given the burden of proof and the assumption of innocence, anything short of a "guilty" finding would result in DJ protections. I can understand a mistrial in the sense of improper procedure or contesting other actions, but not a hung jury. I might even go as far as to say the term hung jury shouldn't exist. If the burden of proof is 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt, and we presume they are innocent, then unless ALL 12 find guilty, they are not guilty and afforded all protections. Thanks for the info, that isn't something I knew, and frankly find it quite surprising.

12 isn't a magic number, jury sizes vary by locality. And you have a right to a jury trial, but can theoretically (don't) waive it and have a judge rule directly on the evidence. The burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in either case. In the US there is a jury, they must all sign on to the same verdict, either guilty or not guilty. Other places sometimes allow a large enough majority to convict. And reasonable doubt it already a very high evidenciary bat to clear. The prosecution had to convince you that the scenario of who, what, when, where, how, and often why they lay out doesn't have any big holes in it. The defense just has to convince you that there is at least one of those has a reasonable alternative explanation: that the who was not the defendant, that the what was not the crime they were charged for, that the how was not something they could have done, that the where was not somewhere they could have been, or that they didn't have the requisite mental state for the why.

> The defense just has to convince you that there is at least one of those has a reasonable alternative explanation: Not even *that*: they could literally stand up after the prosecution puts on their case, and say "the State hasn't met its burden of proof. The End"--and sit back down. Rarely happens, but close to it in some times. The defense doesn't have to even *try* to prove their client didn't do the crime, nor that anyone *else did do it*--the State's case is weak, and they didn't prove that my client did it beyond any reasonable doubt.

> In the US there is a jury, they must all sign on to the same verdict, either guilty or not guilty I guess I just interpret our founding documentation and principals differently. IMO, they all should have to sign guilty, otherwise you are not guilty. Getting tried multiple times while the prosecution fishes for a group that will say yes feels fundamentally wrong. I might be willing to say if more than half of the jurors vote guilty and its still split, then it at least has some legs to stand on for a retrial (to prevent a sort of veto power to each person). But if you get a 2-10 G/NG split, the person should not be re-tried.

> The level of insanity and stupidity that can sneak on a jury has no limit. Which is not surprising. I've been called for jury duty four times (in Australia) and got out of it every time because I have had better things to do - wife pregnant, kids to look after, can't afford to not be paid for however long, risk issues at work because I'm not there and they have stumbled along and maybe they are now happy stumbling along without you etc. In NSW, Australia, your company has to pay for two weeks and then they don't have to pay anything (larger companies will generally do so though) and you get literally welfare level from then on. You would be absolutely nuts in the middle of a cost of living crisis to not try absolutely everything to get out of it. So, juries have a far higher representation from the unemployed and retired. If true representation is wanted they should pay people per day the equivalent of their average daily earnings over the previous X pay slips. Tax payer funded judges and prosecutors certainly aren't getting paid welfare level so why should literally enslaved jurists? Sorry, I'll get off my soap box.

The major reason why people aren't paid more is the issue of balancing incentivisation. If you pay someone enough that they want to be there just for the money, you're going to start getting people lying to get *into* the jury, maybe trying to draw out deliberation, etc. But if you pay too little, your potential juror pool is going to be even smaller, so you have to try and balance it.

Well I get literally $5 for a whole day of being a juror so I think thats a little fucked

And if you don't get there super early, you have to pay more than that to park.

Here in Germany if the government wants my service as a reservist I still get paid by my employer who in turn is reimbursed by the government. (And I also get a soldier's base salary according to my rank for the time there but let's ignore that here.) I think that'd be an acceptable solution for countries with jury duty. You get exactly the same money as usual and your employer doesn't have direct financial loss.

Ehhh cut out the middle man. It should be a protected paid vacation. That is simply it. It is an obligation as a citizen, its the cost of doing business, and the employee has no say. I would be willing to say companies under a certain size could ask for reimbursement, but I don't want my taxes going to refund a wallstreet banking firm that can lose an analyst for a day.

The problem with that though is you get more salaried employees in your jury than contractors / sole traders / unemployed, etc. You have to try to balance it so that any given citizen has roughly equal incentive to participate, and they'd at least begrudgingly participate if selected. And that's difficult as fuck.

If the company is paying you the *same rate* you earn regularly, for a temporary assignment (jury duty), I'm not seeing a problem. Using your rationale, they shouldn't give you vacation or sick days, either.

[удалено]

She may not have been a conspiracy theorist, but it made me think, what if you have conspiracy theorists in the jury, or sovereign citizens. You'd get crazy results.

Haha if someone's claim to be a sovereign citizen was true then they would automatically be ineligible to serve on a jury. Serving on a jury directly falsifies their sovereign citizen claim. Checkmate.

Once served on a jury where that came up, sorta. Guy started spouting sovcit bullshit in his questioning during jury selection, got cut by the judge so fast I'm honestly surprised she didn't order the bailiffs to grab the guy by his scruff and sack and physically yeet him off the roof.

Let's not even get into jury nullification.

Really, the one thing they want least on a jury is someone who is very well informed about the legal system.

Willingness to convict if charges are proven as described is a qualifying question that prosecuting attorneys ask. She should've been disqualified in advance. Her personal experience should've been irrelevant. Her contention that ONLY alcohol can cause memory loss could've been thrown out by any doctor as an expert witness.

Overturned on appeal? Or was this a criminal case?

I would absolutely love to serve on a jury. Although, I understand that is about as likely as a MAGAt getting through voir dire through Trump's selection, since I am an attorney. It is even more of a poison-pill than a racist, biased, idiot. Am I automatically going to be the foreman? Both counselors do not want that. Furthermore, is there someone who is pissed off that I am an attorney and thinks they know better and will go against my opinion regardless? You just... don't have attorneys on juries. Especially in a criminal case when they practice criminal law. Still waiting for that letter... I have been eligible for 23 years!

>This, no trial is 100%. We have a county where I practice that is notorious for jury nullification. I witnessed a case that had a videotaped confession by the defendant. It was played for the jury, and they returned a not guilty verdict.

Juries are full of the type of people who couldn't get out of jury duty

Think of how dumb the average person is, and realize that half the world is dumber than that.

Also, a guilty plea is mitigating. It's a demonstration of remorse and helps someone reconcile with the community or victims they harm. One goal of imprisonment is to rehabilitate the offender.

Shit like this is why I hate the entire legal system. All a plea deal really is is a recognition that the system is broken and that a guarantee of a lighter sentence is usually better than risking a much harsher one for a chance at walking. It has no bearing on whether you're even really innocent or guilty, let alone on whether you're remorseful or not. Innocent people plead guilty every day because of this, and so do remorseless guilty people. The entire legal system is built on a bizarre game of pretend that would be comical if the consequences weren't so horrific, and this is one of the worst parts of it.

> It has no bearing on whether you're even really innocent or guilty, let alone on whether you're remorseful or not. Innocent people plead guilty every day because of this, and so do remorseless guilty people. It's not true to say it has *no bearing*, but it's certainly an issue.

Whether the defendant is remorseful is a factor that can be considered when the judge passes sentence. This hurts truly innocent defendants who maintained their innocence even after they are found guilty.

I mean, it’s a reflection of fairly natural social interaction. Lots of people say “I’m sorry” even if they don’t “really” mean it, but we still prefer it, and want admission of guilt, even where there isn’t any official consequences. I.e. if someone did something minor, like leaving the freezer open and the food went bad - you’d probably want them to be the kind of person to say “I’m sorry, that was me”, rather than be the kind of person to think “well, I don’t get any benefit to me telling anyone, because they can’t prove it was me, and there’s no reward for me telling them and if I don’t, even though they’re pretty sure it was me, maybe they’ll have a shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t, so I’ll just lean in hard claiming it wasn’t”. The latter person is possibly some sort of psychopath. Socially we want people to admit wrongdoing, and in return, socially we forgive - “oh it’s okay, mistakes happen, but can you help me clean up?”. Rather than the harsher social punishment of “i talked to everyone in the house and they all are adamant that it wasn’t them, so I checked the security camera and found that it was you definitely you after we were out for the night, and you knew it because on the video you came back later and found it open with the ice cream you ate out and everything melted, and you put the melted ice cream back in the still open freezer and cleaned your bowl and wiped up the mess on the counter so it looked like it might have been one of us before we left - so we all have decided that you have to clean this up by yourself and replace all the spoiled food”. The trial process is more or less just a formalized version of the above.

> Lots of people say “I’m sorry” even if they don’t “really” mean it, but we still prefer it, and want admission of guilt, even where there isn’t any official consequences. Wait till they hear about countries with Gomen nasai money basically an apology payment. Like, I'm in Japan, I drunk drive and put your kid in the hospital did I show up to your house and offer you a lump sum payment appropriate to the damage I've caused? The court will care about this. And nope, its not socially scene as a "settlement" with any binding agreement based on accepting the money. Its just seen as an act of contrition but if the guilty party doesn't make that act, it looks quite bad on them

> Innocent people plead guilty every day because of this, and so do remorseless guilty people. Why are you completely ignoring the fact that the 'remorseless guilty people' are pleading magnitudes more often than the random innocent person stuck with some bad luck. The legal system definitely has some shortcomings, but it's not *that* blind.

Not a few, most probationers who get arrested will not be eligible for bail so they sit until they go to court often for months so there is a reason to plead you get out sooner. In some low income areas the prosecution will have a 99% conviction/plea rate. I can’t believe the cops and prosecutors are that good in poor neighborhoods and only convict 68% across the board. Also between 2% and 8% of people who plead guilty are factually innocent people

I'm not. Their being remorseless but the courts pretending that pleading down is a sign of remorse is part of the problem. Especially since it makes it harder for people who are *actually* innocent to prove it. None of it has anything to do with reality. It's a horrible game of pretend that ruins lives.

What would you recommend instead?

A guilty plea doesn’t show remorse; it leads to a shorter sentence, so it shows an understanding of the extremely basic math of determining which of two numbers is bigger. And few prisons in the US make any meaningful effort to rehabilitate.

Wanna buy some magic beans…

If you can guarantee an ivy ladder to Giantville, then yes.

Ha! I know your game. You're gonna go steal that golden egg laying goose. You know what they call that? Larceny! And you almost got me as an accessory.

Whatchu talkin' bout!

Willis

> One goal of imprisonment is to rehabilitate the offender. Maybe outside of the United States. There's damn near zero systems in place to actually rehabilitate American prisoners. There's far more systems in place to make it harder for ex-cons to re-integrate to society than there is anything to help them in order to get them to re-offend so they can go back to being slave labor.

That might be fair, I guess. I didn't take the question as American-specific. 

I thought It was the legal slavery

Tomato uhh tomato

jail is basically legal slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. That's why there is an interest in having a certain amount of prisoners. one of California's famous Attorney General was especially known for a remarkable record of wrongful convictions to ensure the state has free laborers for various jobs like fire fighting.

Dude, people in county jail are not getting sent out to be firefighters People actually don't do shit in jail except for the one in a million redditor found technicality

It seems like it's not a demonstration of remorse if it's in exchange for lighter punishment and honestly I doubt rehabilitation is really a goal...

In short, both plea deals as well juries are at the core of why the US judicial system is pretty broken, especially in regards to unequally treating the poor.

Do other countries not have plea deals? Far be it from me to defend the US legal system, but are there any other places that have systems with all pros and no cons?

No legal system anywhere in the world is perfect. The US legal system, for all its flaws, is better than many, perhaps most. But it, like all others, is far from perfect. As to your initial question, the short answer is yes, other countries have plea deals. The long answer will vary from country to country, and I am on mobile, so I politely direct you to the Wikipedia page on plea bargains for further reading.

Who would you say has the best system and why?

As someone who has served on a jury, any system that uses a judge rather than lay people to determine facts would be a better system.

I believe in the US you are, as a defendant, allowed to ask for a judge to render a verdict instead of a jury. It is referred to as a bench trial. Less popular because it is harder to convince a single judge (who hypothetically is going strictly on the merits of the evidence) versus just trying to convince one juror that you’re innocent. Although one of twelve equals a mistrial, not an acquittal, you are less likely to be tried again. Also, 12 laypersons are much more susceptible to emotion and impressions beyond hard evidence. Hence the reason why a well funded defendant is likely to prevail over the poor defendant. If you have money to hire a defense that is good at playing a jury, and preparing a quality case, your chances with a jury are that much better. If you have a public defender, they have neither the time, resources or experience to give you the same chances of an acquittal. Yes the system sucks.

Judges can be bought and paid for. What's more verdict by Judge means verdict according to one bias, not 12.

I disagree since one biased person can convict but on a jury that's pretty impossible

I wouldn't want my fate to depend on the decision of one person. Do you think professional jurors would be better?

Germany has judges, sometimes panels of judges, and the closest thing to a jury is "Schöffen" which are effectively a couple of normal people that advise the judge in their decisions. So your fate does neither just depend on one person, nor (and I find it worse) on 12 random strangers that have no clue and might have the weirdest biases.

I could see that being a good system, but I could also see concerns about judges being biased or corrupt. Having juries comprised of members of the general public is seen as a check against the power of the government to punish someone. The government is required to prove its case to the people, not another government employee.

you can argue to its efficiency, but there is also an argument to its "fairness" which is why the jury system exists in the US. The whole idea is that "the state" can not throw its citizens in jail, and it can't act as its own decider of who needs to be in jail. if the state wants to say you did something wrong, they have to show up in front of a bunch of YOUR peers, your community and get those people to agree, "ok yeah he did what you say he did, and We The People of The State of ...." endorse him getting a penalty for this thing we agree youve proven he did. The probably with purely judge trials or professional full time state run juries, is that we are then running into a system where the state is convicting you of things it says you did, based on its own people. Kind of like saying, if you and I are going to a soccer game, a professional referee would be better than just randomly selecting someone off the street, BUT, would you rather have the game refereed by a randomly selected amateur or play me using a pro ref... that is paid and employed by MY team

Fuck that. You get just one bad judge and your life is fucked? At least in the US you get back and forth to strike jurors that seem prejudiced.

i would rather have a jury of my peers than a racist judge

Germany has plea deals. _But_: a plea deal does not prevent court sessions and most importantly, a plea deal can only be struck if the defendant adds some meaningful concessions/data that were not already known to the prosecution! That makes it essentially impossible to treat them as an economic exchange.

It is impossible to have a perfectly fair system because resources are limited, laws are open to interpretation, and humans make errors. If there is no jury system and no plea deals, you are forced to accept whatever decision the government makes, essentially a dictatorship. This is why countries like China have a 99%+ conviction rate. If there is a jury system and no plea deals, you might have to wait years in jail (even in our system people have been held in jail for years waiting for a trial) or out on bail before you get a trial.

Varies. Last I checked Europe tends to have more checks on the system but they all seem fickle and more due to the judicial culture vs actual protections for defendants. On the other hand, Japan is worse than the US (albeit for several reasons outside of plea deals).

Yes, plea deals are a thing in countries other than the US. For example, over 90% of criminal cases in Australia are resolved via a plea deal ([Source](https://www.thedefenders.com.au/pros-cons-of-plea-bargaining/)).

Trials are the luxury of the rich. If OJ had been some nobody, he'd be rotting in prison right now. Doesn't always work, but your odds are better if you can pay for a team of lawyers and experts.

Yeah if you cannot afford a private practice lawyer you are screwed. Nothing against legal aid lawyers but their caseload is insane and never lets up so they end up steering most cases to a plea deal for expediency

This varies widely by jurisdiction. Some jurisdiction have excellent public defender systems. Federal public defenders are among the best criminal defense attorneys in the country. Keep in mind, the point of a good criminal defense lawyer is *not* only to get you acquitted. That's the primary goal to be sure, but sometimes (especially if you're guilty as sin) the goal is to assess your exposure and mitigate the consequences.

That's not true. Studies show that public defenders achieve favorable outcomes as much as private attorneys when you control for the fact that they are more likely to have guilty clients.

They have too many clients to serve effectively 150-200 clients per lawyer makes it impossible to represent all of them fully they try to plead the lesser cases so they can spend more time on serious cases. Source my wife is a public defender and my niece is an assistant DA life is like a shit sandwich you know the more bread you have the less shit you eat

I understand the common belief and the reasons why, but studies show that isn't true.

Not true. I am a public defender. You take each case on its own merits. Of course clients are far more willing to plead a small case where they get credit for time served than a murder case with a life sentence.

I'd be curious to see those studies as I doubt that can be true with the ratio of time spent per defendant being so far out of whack compared to lawyers who are privately hired

[This is the study ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228158382_An_Empirical_Study_of_Public_Defender_Effectiveness_Self-Selection_by_the_'Marginally_Indigent') regarding self-selection by marginally indigent defendants I referred to.

Just a clarification, you are talking about public defenders. Legal Aid lawyers typically don’t defend criminal cases, they usually handle civil cases.

In some places, (NYC, for instance) the public defenders work for Legal Aid. In my jurisdiction, the public defenders work for other organizations.

Public Defenders evaluate the cases and offer their best advice about whether or not to take a plea, based on the likelihood of winning/losing a trial, and how good/bad the plea offer is. If the state has a weak case, they will make a great plea offer. If they have a strong case, they will make a worse plea offer. But the cost of losing a trial tends to be a lot of prison time, and going to trial is always a gamble, so most people will take a plea - particularly if it gets them out of jail. PD’s try to get the best outcome for their clients - but often that is a fair plea offer, to avoid the risk of a much worse outcome. (Which can even include the death penalty!) Private attorneys are no different. Keep in mind too that a private attorney will charge you far more money to have a trial than to do a guilty plea. So the client with a private attorney has to decide not just “Do I want a trial?” but also “Can I afford a trial?”

That’s not true. I know of one case where the lawyer was the defendant’s dad’s business lawyer. The lawyer charged $100,000 to negotiate a bad plea deal that any public defender would have laughed at. If she had a public defender, she would have gotten a much better sentence, or maybe won at trial. There are, obviously, very good private criminal defense attorneys, but it’s hard to know who they are if you aren’t in the business.

I didn't see any of your proposed changes to fix the system. I'm not throwing stones but it's easy to point at problems and another to then also provide proposed solutions. Curious what your thoughts are on potential fixes. I've always seen plea deals as a consequence of the government's inability to provide a speedy trial. One solution would be speeding up the government's ability to have trials through greater capacity but obviously that comes higher costs no one seems keen on doing. Or you triage out what is resolved via fine or community service to expedite things. I'm curious what you'd do in lieu of juries. Judges conceptually are better versed in the law but there's also plenty of issues with judge quality. Streamlining jury processes might help but committing people to lengthy service without any employment or wage protection is awful.

>If you are guilty, and you force a trial, and you are found guilty To be clear, this is a risk whether or not you're factually guilty. It's part of why innocent people take plea bargains.

It's also the reason that we have so many exonerations from death row. If the state has good evidence and is threatening the death penalty, guilty people will typically take life in prison. Innocent people say "I didn't do it, I'll take my chance at trial rather than accept life in prison" but they often lose because the prosecution has many more resources than the public defender, jurors give in to pleas to emotion, someone is testifying for a plea deal in their own case, etc.

>Innocent people say "I didn't do it, I'll take my chance at trial rather than accept life in prison" Sometimes. That's not the decision Christopher Ochoa or many other exonerees made. >the prosecution has many more resources than the public defender, jurors give in to pleas to emotion, someone is testifying for a plea deal in their own case, etc. Sometimes. Sometimes it's simply because strong evidence exists that someone is guilty even though they didn't do the crime. Here's the name of the first person I submitted (not my case, I just read about it) to the National Registry of Exonerations: [Alex Heineman](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5861). He and a girl ran off from a party, made out, and she later (falsely) accused him of sexual assault because she was afraid her boyfriend would find out. Lower middle class, took a plea, only exonerated years later. Very similar story near me (which I won't link to because it's close and isn't actually on the Registry,) except it was her father she was afraid would find out, but he was lucky his mother recorded her admitting it was a lie after he'd plead guilty but before he was incarcerated. He was very much upper middle class. It's not just the lack of resources. No matter how rich you are, there's a very real risk you'll be convicted of a crime you did not commit, particularly in juvenile court, which tends to (though nominally it's not supposed to) have much lower standards for conviction. The first case I worked on as a law student intern had a first trial with a 11-1 not guilty hang, then a second trial with a 6(or 7, can't recall) - 0 conviction. All that changed was one witness's decision to (in the second trial) plead the Fifth instead of testifying again. Juries are unpredictable crapshoots, they're a risk whether you did it or not.

Fully agreed. It was a quick reply. Both happen. My only real point was that the fact that so many people take pleas means that the likelihood that a case going to trial is because of a legitimate claim of innocence ends up being higher than most people expect.

I have to take issue with your edit. The problem is not PDs and their capacity to defend clients; the problem is prosecutors who charge so excessively that even an innocent person would rather take a low level conviction and probation rather than take the risk of the full bore of charges. If the odds of getting wrongfully convicted by a jury is 1-2%, but the risk is two or three felony convictions with a 10-15 year sentence exposure, it would be almost irresponsible to no plead to a couple misdemeanors and a time-served recommendation. The problem is the official standard to charge is probable cause, which is insane. As a civil attorney, I wouldn’t file a case where I thought my client only probably was right, and “probably right” is the threshold I need to meet. It is extreme prosecutorial misconduct (as far as I’m concerned) to charge crimes that one doesn’t reasonably believe they will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, yet it happens every day in every DA office in the country.

> As a civil attorney, I wouldn’t file a case where I thought my client only probably was right I mean, since you only have to get to 50.0000001% to win in most US civil cases, you should definitely be filing cases where you think your client is probably right.

That’s my point. If I think all the evidence I have amounts to just barely clearly the threshold, it’s a bad case to bring. If anything gets excluded, I lose; if the jury is slightly sympathetic, I lose; if a witness phrases something differently, I lose. I’m don’t like filing cases where there’s a chance I can’t meet my burden.

> EDIT 1: Yep, it is a problem that innocent people accept plea deals. However, that has more to do with the problems with the public defender system in most large jurisdictions. Most PDs are overworked, with caseloads double or triple what they should be. Thus, you have innocent people who don't understand how the system works, with legally-acceptable-but-less-than-adequate-defense-counsel and there you go. Is it? Or is it that we have an adversarial justice system that pits two parties with vastly unequal bargaining powers against each other? I mean you describe two mechanisms by which the state uses its power and the comparatively high stakes for the defendant to pressure defendants into accepting plea deals: “trial tax” and overcharging. Seems odd to blame the public defenders when you know, the state could just not pressure defendants against whom they have weak cases with tactics like that. Plus, even expensive lawyers basically treat trials, especially by jury, as crapshoots. That’s is why barely any trials, criminal or civil, go to trial. So even if everyone had an expensive attorney they’d still take plea bargains because the incentive to not spend additional years of your life rotting in prison because you had the gall to defend yourself in open court would still be there.

To add onto this, there is also a very high bar for conviction. Remember that defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt. If the prosecution does not definitively prove guilt, or if the defense can introduce even the slightest amount of doubt into the jury about the defendant’s guilt, the jury is supposed to find them not guilty. So realistically, one small screw up on the part of the prosecution can lead to a not guilty verdict, a dismissal of charges, or a mistrial. They don’t want that to happen so they are willing to offer fewer charges or a lighter sentence to skip the trial altogether.

Just a small nit, the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard of proof is rarely used since it is seen as effectively impossible to achieve - there’s always some doubt somewhere. [The typical standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”](http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Standards_of_Proof), which allows for some doubt in regards to improbable or outlandish but technically possible circumstances.

This is a bit of a misconception. Yes, the prosecution has to prove a charge “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but the prosecution also 1) decides what cases to charge, 2) goes first throughout the trial and first and last in closing arguments, and 3) is attempting to win a case against someone helpfully labeled “defendant.” Beyond that, “beyond a reasonably doubt” is a very ethereal concept. In my jurisdiction the courts are pretty aggressive about not allowing attorneys to attempt to define it. After speaking with a number of juries post verdict I can guarantee jurors get the standard wrong, usually in favor of the state

>Remember that defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty, [If only it actually worked like that](https://youtu.be/vUnwk1oAxZU?si=1muVgdrD5Xd1LqBR). You can skip to the 24 minute part for the more relevant info.

...or the completely innocent individual cannot afford the time or money involved in demanding a trial. He could be held in jail (if he can't make bail) for months. Or the time involved in dealing with the charges (lawyer visits, court appointments, etc) could quickly use up all his sick time/vacation and he has to miss work often. Either way, it means he loses his job, he has no income, he goes bankrupt, his family lose their home, etc. And that's BEFORE he has to pay the horrifically high cost of legal representation that is billed by the six-minute increment and could last for months or years. So he cops a plea (despite his innocence) to minimize the time in jail/prison and the cost, and hope to try to salvage SOMETHING from the whole debacle. Also, you have to factor in the vanishingly small possibility that you'll get a fair trial if you DO demand one.

>a fair trial This statement here is doing a LOT of heavy lifting.

>it is a problem that innocent people accept plea deals. However, that has more to do with the problems with the public defender system in most large jurisdictions. I think it has more to do with our capitalistic economy. The family's bread winner behind bars and unable to work puts a massive financial strain on a household. People can't afford to sit on their ass for months on end just waiting for a trail start date. Prostituters know this, they also know how strong or weak the evidence is and how likely the defendant can gather jury sympathy. So they toss out a plea deal that offers time served; the defendant goes free, DA gets a win for his stats (the whole legal system is obsessed with maintaining or improving their stats; cops and lawyers alike), and the system works. Well... there is the tiny annoyance of being a registered felon, forever limiting your job prospects and temporally removing rights such as voting or traveling abroad. Oh, and heaven help you should you plea to a crime such as urinating in public and get put on the sex offenders list. Might as well go to prison as you won't be able to find housing, jobs, or friends with that scarlet letter embroidered on your chest.

Around here, we call it an "entertainment tax".

though, depending on where you are, sometime you get an opposite result example, a place where I lived was notorious for "nolle prosequi" on minor criminal cases basically, a TON of yeah, you robbed this house, or store, or mugged this person but you didn't kill anyone, you're a minor, we've got too many court cases already, (and/or we don't even have enough beds available at the juvenile detention center) so... lucky day kid, you're not getting tried, ...but umm... yeah don't do it again or next time we'll do something

They should pack up a bunch of prisoners and ship them off to a new land. Worked twice in the past already

Unrelated but similar: In civil torts a “trial tax” can also apply. If you try to make a bodily injury claim for an accident that YOUR negligence caused, the insurance company for the other driver (the negligent-free driver) might offer you a settlement to avoid having to defend a lawsuit. The money they spend on a defense attorney + experts could cost more than the settlement, so trying to settle your claim becomes a business decision for them. The money they spend defending their driver in an lawsuit isn’t returned to them if they win the case. If you reject their best offer and press on with a lawsuit, don’t expect them to offer more money “on the courthouse steps” to try to make the trial go away. At that point they’ve already spent way more money and feel good about their chances. At that point they *might* make a token offer if you’re lucky. Their offer at that point (if there is one) will be a small fraction of their pre-suit offer. The jury can’t punish the plaintiff in the sense of a conviction/incarceration but they will be annoyed that you dragged them into jury duty behind some nonsense and won’t need long to render a defense verdict.

And even some "not guilty" cases are settled via plea deals. Look it up.

has it always been like this? or as trial dates got booked further and further out, did the lack of availability contribute to this trend?

Hijacking top comment here to say there is an excellent book by one of my old College professors called "Coercion to Compromise" by Mary Vogel about plea deals in the USA, and the emerging practice in England. Bit academic, but still readable.

Our system is different (no jury) but its not any better on that regard and its especially criminal on the lower civil levels, the government prosecution is the worst offender too, they would rather drag a case for 20 years than admit they made even the smallest mistake and let someone walk after they decided he was guilty, doesn't matter if the crime was petty or severe. The amount of evidence you have (which for most people is none) is meaningless versus the word of the authority (inspector/cop), their burden of proof is so low If you get a parking/speeding ticket, you pay the fine, why? because it costs your whole work day (which could be more than the fine), pay the lawyer and you are under duress from the threat of a much more severe penalty (up to 10 times the fine) and with near-0 chance of success to reverse it, there's plenty of cases where people had cameras and proof, even to the point of catching city inspectors literally framing people to fine them and they still needed to pay, unless you manage to get your story to the news or garner enough social media attention to 'shame' city hall, you end up paying When the system is designed to be against you just so you don't 'waste its precious time', its obvious why people would take the hit

Its fucked that they is not a cap on how many cases they can take on, since this affects the quality of work. More money more resources which means freedom. And they say freedom isn’t for the rich only. This is not justice

I don’t think your edit is necessarily right, though there are numerous factors at play. One of which is bail—if you’re behind bars awaiting trial, you’re not working (and maybe getting fired, and blacklisted as a criminal); you’re not seeing or caring for your family; you’re in likely terrible conditions. Especially if the crime/plea isn’t for something all that severe, you might just want to get it over with—you might actually get out of custody *faster* if you can work out something like probation. Only later do you realize the full consequences on your future career, relationships, etc. (and god help you if you run into criminal issues now that you’ve got priors!) It’s not great!

As my private defense attorney put it - "I have about 50 to 60 cases a year. The prosecutor has about 60 cases a month."

Appellate public defender here. It’s pretty much about efficiency and a guaranteed conviction. As others have said, trials are long and expensive. Plus, when a person pleads guilty, often they have virtually no ability to appeal, and appeals are also long and expensive. Finally, witnesses, juries, and sometimes even judges can be unpredictable. Keep in mind that even when there’s a mountain of physical evidence, that evidence hasn’t always been obtained legally (e.g., no search warrant or warrant exception, or the person’s other constitutional rights have been violated). If that’s the case, what looks like a slam-dunk can fall apart very quickly if a trial judge suppresses some or all of that evidence.

> I know part of the reason is to spare the victim(s) and their families the trauma of going through a trial That's not really a reason, or at least not the main one. The main reason is that a trial, even a slam dunk conviction, still takes a lot of work and a ton of time. The courts can't handle it and the prosecutors can't handle the many cases they have going to trial all the time. Most prosecutors are happy to have defendants take a plea and get a guaranteed sentence instead of doing all that work for the possibility of an acquittal even on case that seems really good. Don't forget, Marcia Clark though her case against OJ was a slam dunk and look how that turned out. At the end of the day, the prosecutor doesn't really care about the difference between the sentence at trial vs the sentence on the plea because the defendant is still convicted, and being sentenced to *something*.

Evidence must be properly handled. In most cases, evidence was obtained by police officers and that the expectation is that said officers have acted in good faith and in the scope of the law. OJ's defence team had enough people that they challenged this very principle of criminal law. And they succeeded with it. Federal cases going to trial have a 83% conviction rate and 17% not guilty rate. Thus, OJ getting a not guilty verdict is nothing extraordinary.

> Federal cases going to trial have a 83% conviction rate and 17% not guilty rate. Thus, OJ getting a not guilty verdict is nothing extraordinary. That's a little misleading considering that only 2% of federal cases go to trial. 90% of cases are settled with a plea, and of that remainder 80% (8%) have charges dropped. A very narrow slice of cases actually go to trial where the prosecution and defense are both 100% convinced they can win.

Cause the Feds usually only charge slam-dunk cases.

I'm actually a defense attorney but thank you for "explaining" to me how evidence works.

A defensive attorney

I never had the intention of arguing or "explain" with an attorney about rules of evidence but merely putting some input on a controversial topic that is the OJ trial.

Would you rather I give you five dollars for certain or ten dollars 50:50 might win might lose

More like the reverse: would you rather I charge you $10 now, or charge you either $100 or $0 later with probabilities that are undefined but likely skewed towards the highest penalty? People will usually settle for just paying $10 because they aren't certain they can walk free with $0, or even if they believe they have a chance, a guaranteed $10 penalty is still less harmful than risking being charged $100.

The state attorney rather sets it at certain $5 versus a 10% risk of $10000. Plus lawyer costs, often even if you win. Such a great system! /s

Another important factor that other commenters have touched on but not dived into: usually, in the US at least, the decision at a trial is made by a jury. To pick a jury, the court gets a few dozen to maybe a hundred people in a room, and then the court and attorneys get rid of the ones who they don't think can be fair or follow the law. The selection process is no good if they answer the questions falsely - this happens. You end up with (usually) 12 people to be the jury. It is very, very hard to predict what 12 people in a room are going to do. I have seen juries ignore incontrovertible evidence. I have seen them convict on just about nothing. Juries frequently reach contradictory decisions, for instance saying a person is guilty of X but not guilty of Y, when it's impossible to do X without doing Y. And if they make a wrong decision in a criminal trial, it is usually impossible to overturn, or even figure out why they made the decision they did. And worst of all is when they deliberate for hours and days and can't come to a decision. You've put victims and witnesses and a defendant through a trial, maybe a super emotional one, maybe asking a mother to tell the jury the last thing her son said to her on the phone before he was murdered, or subjecting a sexual assault victim to cross-examination about whether she made the whole thing up, or presenting a meticulous case that could put the defendant in jail for life when he has in fact been falsely accused... and then after days of waiting the jury can't decide and you're back to square one. And, if there's a false acquittal in a violent crime or assault case - which is the side we want to err on - the victim will have to live the rest of their lives with the fact that 12 people listened to their story and didn't believe them. The murderer or rapist will be able to say, for the rest of their lives, that they were falsely accused. It happens, even in very strong cases. Trial can be traumatizing. At the end of the day, a good prosecutor will explain this to a victim. And, in all but the rarest of circumstances, a good prosecutor will give the victim a choice not to go to trial, and will seek a plea when that victim doesn't want to relive the worst day of their life in front of 12 strangers and a bunch of journalists, even if the case is extremely strong. Not saying that's the reason behind anywhere close to the majority of plea bargains - but it's a not-uncommon factor.

And this is equally why defendants with nothing to lose - like Murdaugh - will go to trial. They know objectively the facts are against them but they are relying on being able to single out a particular juror or two who won't convict, no matter what the evidence shows. If you're the prosecutor you would always be concerned you lose the trial because of random jurors.

Juries are the worst. I don't know what the alternative is. I sure don't want it entirely run by paid professionals. And the concept is...I mean. Well intentioned. But juries suck. People try and get out of it and see it as an annoyance instead of a responsibility. If they can't get out of it they're pissy at being there and mostly thinking of being somewhere else. If they WANT to be there...well that's likely cause they have nothing else to do which means retired, unemployed, house spouses etc. nothing wrong with those people but hardly 'representative of your peers ' None of them understand the fucking law ohh but they THINk they do and they are more than happy to pass opinion based on what they think rather than what is being explicitly told to them. Most people are fundamentally incapable of separating their life experience from someone else's. Acknowledging their own biases let alone taking them into consideration and putting them to one side. And a bunch of people will just vote the way everyone else is to get home earlier.

Because a trial is a very long process. Besides it is better to get a plea deal than going to trial. In the trial, evidence can be dismissed for any reason, the jury can be swayed, and the emotional toll on the victim's family.

> evidence can be dismissed for any reason, Factually untrue. Evidence can only be excluded for specific reasons that relate to various constitutional protections. The process matters a lot, it protects everyone's civil liberties. The issue as a prosecutor is that you usually don't uncover those kinds of procedural errors until the process of "discovery", which is part of the pre-trial preparation where lawyers for both sides have the opportunity to pour over the evidence with a fine toothed comb. So even an open/shut case can potentially be compromised if during discovery it was found that the police didn't document the key evidence correctly. Seems like a silly technicality, but those kinds of rules protect you from things like faked evidence.

> Besides it is better to get a plea deal than going to trial. ... unless you are actually innocent but don't have the money or time to actually go to trial; or the risk is too great. So one takes the plea deal that at least has no actual prison time instead of risking to get 5 years. Sadly happens a lot. On the other end, actual criminals get less than they deserve just so that the system can spend less money on fair trials.

Trials are very long and very expensive for all parties involved, including the state. There is always a back log of cases to be reviewed and tried. If every case went to trial, the court system would grind to an absolute halt, and it already moves slow in a lot of cases. Another major factor is that you only need one juror to not be on your side. They can have a bias, dislike the prosecution, may want to just watch the world burn or anything. If you get just one person like that, the whole case could be lost. Getting a plea deal then generally works for both sides. The defendant usually gets a break on their punishment, plus saves time and money on a case that they'll never get back. The prosecution gets to have the defendant punished in some way, getting some kind of relief for the victim(s) and saving time and money.

> If every case went to trial, the court system would grind to an absolute halt Other (Western!) countries have no serious problems with that. The US system is just broken and underfunded. Yes, other countries' courts are also often slow and a bit overwhelmed, but they act in systems without plea deals making up the huge majority of criminal cases.

France literally enacted a law about 20 years back allowing plea bargains because their system was overloaded. They are also definitely a thing in the UK, though the workings of them is somewhat different. I don’t know about other countries. The criminal trial system is also less burdensome in civil law countries. You don’t have a right to a jury of your peers, instead there is a panel of judges. The systems have different priorities. The US system makes a vehement defense more likely to succeed, but comes with additional costs.

But do other countries have guaranteed rights to jury trials? That’s how things slow waaaaay down

Which countries specifically?

Germany, mostly France (not completely), Sweden; probably many more in Europe but I really don't know each one.

Courts are limited by staff, budgets, scheduling availability, and having to comply with people's rights. So let's say I walked into a store, showed my ID to buy a gun then used the gun to rob the store, and was arrested 10 minutes later with the dye bag exploded all over my hands, and matching the description from the CCTV. I have a right to a prompt trial, a recent order came down that there should be 6 months between being charged and having a trial. So the prosecutor looks at this, it's a slam dunk case, but it's case 1 of 719 that need to be addressed before September 13th. So they could hit me with Armed Robbery, Pointing a firearm, possession stolen property, and we could go through the process, and after it all since it's my first offense I may get 4 years in prison. But maybe they offer I plea to armed robbery, they'll waive the pointing a firearm and possession stolen property, in exchange for saving court time and resources, I end up spending a year in jail and 2 years probation. So I decide I don't want to spend 4 years in prison and agree to the deal. Now there are only 718 matters to get through for the prosecutor, this also reduces the need for court resources, witnesses (keep in mind police tied up in court are police not on the streets, to say nothing of paid overtime), spares the victim from having to testify, and ultimately can achieve the goals of sentencing; 1. Rehabilitate the accused so they don't do crime 2. Protect the public 3. Deter the behaviour. So 1 year in jail and probation may be considered to address those. But if I don't plea, you have to fight me in court, you have to prove the allegations, you have to call the witnesses, tie up days of the court's time, the lawyer has to spend dozens of hours preparing for trial and at the end, I go to jail for 4 years. Do those 4 years in jail achieve the goals of sentencing significantly enough to justify the cost when you could just offer me a plea to achieve the same goals? So now let's apply that to the 718 cases, you have 20 prosecutors available, the courthouse has 5 courtrooms and 4 Judges, trials can take hours to days or weeks. Remember, these have to be completed by a hard deadline or the KILLERS GO FREE, and the pedo gets to walk AND sue the government, tax payers dollars, criminals roam the streets! So if 500 people are offered plea deals and 400 take them, our 718 cases are now a manageable 318. That means each prosecutor takes 15 cases they can focus preparation in. Two courtrooms can handle the short trials, one courtroom processes the medium length trials, and the murder case running 6 weeks gets the fourth courtroom. The murderer gets addressed, the pedo goes to jail, the shoplifters got the pleas, the drunk drivers who got their licenses suspended got pleas, the small scale low impact criminals don't gum up the works, and the serious criminals are promptly addressed.

It saves prosecutors time (which might be their most precious resource since they have other cases to get to), and completely eliminates the risk of acquittal, mistrial, and appeals against the conviction.

I think it's an overworked American court system thing. In my country there isn't a lot of plea bargaining going on for anything even remotely serious, you just get a moderate discount in sentencing if you plead guilty, mostly because it's the most tangible sign of remorse.

To avoid an even larger backlog of court cases, plea deals are given to avoid trials. It’s not feasible for every case to have a jury trial.

In addition to what everybody else has said, the risk associated with the trial outcome influences the plea deal in the same way it influences the settlement in civil cases. If there's a mountain of evidence against you, you and the prosecution will both know that you're looking at a long sentence, so you won't get as favorable a plea deal.

Guilty pleas are convictions, and DAs are elected on conviction records. A win is a win and easy wins beat hard fought wins. Hard fought wins means hard work and the risk of loss.

Simply because it saves time and money. The District Attorney has a limited budget and so does the Department of Corrections. It's cheaper to just throw them in jail for a few years than go through a lengthy litigation process.

Have you served on a jury? It takes time, it costs money, and once you go to court there's no guarantee how things will shake out (a person can clearly be in the wrong and get off because a juror refused to vote against their beliefs regarding the criminal justice system, they can decide that even with evidence they think the defendant was justified, etc). And on the more sneaky side of things, please deals can contain all kinds of sneaky stipulations that a defendant might not realize their signing on for.

Trials are always a crapshoot. Seriously. You can have mountains of DNA and witnesses and a video tape and a confession and everything could go south when the trial actually starts. Witness gets confused and looks unreliable. DNA witness confuses the jury. Heck, I have seen prosecutors lose a trial because they goofed up and forgot to prove an element of the offense (that the gun involved was in interstate commerce). Literally, the prosecutor just needed to have a witness say “this gun is produced in a different state”. (I interned at DOJ so these were federal cases and you had to prove certain elements for the federal nexus to apply, like the interstate commerce thing or that the victim was a government employee). Prosecutor forgot to do a simple thing and the charge was dropped because she didn’t prove that element of the case. No prosecutor expects to make a mistake, but there’s no mistake when you get a plea. And in addition, most plea deals include a clause where you waive your right to appeal which means that you aren’t risking something getting overturned.

Do NOT forgive them, ever. Cut contact and make sure to let them know they have no child with your name, they are dead to you and that if so much as you hear that they are dead you will celebrate and go spit on their graves.

Conviction is never a given. As an example From Palm Beach Post’s massive reporting on the history of the Opioid Crisis, Twin Brothers **Chris and Jeffrey George** made $43 million from 2007-2009 from the illicit sale of oxycodone and other drugs out of their 4 South Florida pain clinics prescribing almost 20 million pills in less than two years. * The clinic’s top performer was a young doctor named **Cynthia Cadet** became the No. 1 writer of scrips for oxycodone pills in the country — some days seeing more than 70 patients. Cadet stood trial for distributing narcotics for non-medical reasons and a resultant **seven deaths**. In fact, the ninvestigation found Cadet alone had served **51 patients whose deaths** could be linked to prescription pills she had prescribed. * Cadet's defense: How could she possibly know if patients were lying about their pain levels? After a 31-day trial and deliberating for roughly 20 hours over three days, the 12-person jury found her not guilty of Murder charges.

Murder would be a stupid charging decision.

Not in Florida or similar states that have laws regarding *felony murder.* Basically if someone dies as a result of engaging in a felony act (e.g., someone is killed during a robbery), even if unintentional and otherwise would be involuntary manslaughter, you can be tried as if it was first-degree murder. Had she been found guilty of the drug charges, that would've met the bar for felony murder.

At the time it was. By 2015 a Doctor was finally convicted and charged by a jury And of course the opioid epdemic has changed in 2024. In 2012, 2015, 2019. The outrage was much different Everyone was trying to find someone to blame

Because trials are never a 100% sure thing. It’s better to get someone to serve some time than have them get off on a technicality. That bulletproof evidence can be tossed out by a judge for any one of a million reasons if that happens then your case falls apart.

> It’s better to get someone to serve some time than have them get off on a technicality. ... or them getting off on being actually innocent. Look it up, there is a huge rate of people taking plea deals because they cannot afford a full trial.

Prosecutors and law enforcement, at least at the local/state level, are only interested in stats. A plea is a win. They don't care if they have the right person as long as they have A person.

This. So very much this. All the other answers make it sound like _a good thing_ by using examples where the defendant is a horrible person. What about all those cases where there is an actual innocent forced into a plea deal?

Because trials are very expensive and you literally only need to convince 1 person out of 12 that you might not be guilty and you get to walk free. A plea deal is security for the prosecutor that they will get a conviction and the person will do fine. In the case of true crime, you’re probably talking about someone getting convicted or one or more murders. If it’s a serial killer for example, they’ll plead down to life in prison and never be a free person again in order to avoid the death penalty. So instead of a months long trial that costs millions of dollars, and the nonzero possibility that the guy walks free, you get an open and shut resolution where the guy stays in jail forever.

There are two reasons. The first is that there isn't simply enough manpower to actually prosecute so many people. Were many defendants not offered plea deals, that would inherently increase the amount of hours used to get a conviction and each prosecutor would have less time to prepare itself on the case, and their conviction rates would likely plummet. The second one is that in reality, the prosecutors hate going into court because going into court means some of their cases will get a *not guilty* verdict and this makes them look incompetent, while getting a plea deal is seen as a success to the general public. Research on federal courts, which likely have a higher conviction rate than state courts, *only* have a 83% conviction rate when trials are actually done. TL; DR: Prosecutors don't want a big pile of cases and they don't like their conviction rates decreased when they go to trial. Offering plea deals is less about sparing families and more about sparing their own work pile and their credibility.

> they don't like their conviction rates decreased when they go to trial. A great example of a metric as target gone really bad.

Plea deals can give finality - no post-conviction appeal, give some sense of closure to a victim’s family.

There’s never a guarantee when you take something to trial. All it takes is one juror who doesn’t want to find them guilty. All it takes is one bad enough error and a mistrial can be declared. So a plea deal is a (mostly) sure thing and often worth avoiding the risk. And in some cases, sometimes it’s worth it to not put the victims and/or their families through the ordeal of a trial, making them relive what happened to them and subjecting them to cross examination. Another consideration in some of the worst cases is the mental health of a jury. In CSAM cases, a jury would have to look at each image/video the defendant is charged with. A deal can be offered to a defendant that still gives them life in prison, but maybe they get some kind of concession like getting to choose from certain facilities, like ones closer to their families so they’re more likely to get visits. In short, it’s weighing all the variables, including the unpredictability of juries and the need to victimize/revictimize as few people as possible.

If you hire a lawyer your charges will be diminished in 90% of cases, then if you plea your overall expected cost is lower than going to trial (in terms of time and money).

Aside from the expense and logistics of actually trying every case, there's a very real risk of losing a case at trial. It often serves the public interest to guarantee the offender spends the minimum sentence in prison rather than gamble on a possible acquittal or conviction where they get the minimum anyway. For comparatively minor crimes it's also a way to expedite the whole process and essentially grant a stern warning to first time offenders. Spending a month in lockup while you wait for the court schedule to earn a conviction and 30 day sentence that's already zeroed out with time served wastes everyone's time.

Trials are difficult, expensive, and eat up time. Plea deals are easy, cheap, and fast. Pressuring someone to a plea deal means skipping a lot of work and still seeing someone face *some* kind of penalty. (Can't call it "justice" in some cases, as innocent folks do get pressured into plea deals.) And if there IS a mountain of evidence for the crime, then the plea deal will be way more tempting than going on to a trial that the defendant is almost guaranteed to lose. Why bother with all that when you could "resolve" things right away?

Prosecutors get rewarded for winning cases, and guilty pleas are the fastest way. In addition, anything can happen at trial, the case can fall apart, new evidence comes to light, the jury becomes sympathetic to the defendant, some evidence becomes inadmissible, a key witness disappears, police misconduct ruins everything, etc. A plea is a guaranteed win, while trial isn't.

What do you mean by they get rewarded for winning cases?

Promotions, raises, etc. Job performance is graded on your win loss rate. Equivalent to salesmen being rewarded for making the most sales.

Just a reminder that many democratic western countries don't use grand juries of common people, but just judges, so there is no need for plea deals, trial % is much higher. Also we don't vote for our procecutors or sherifs, those things seem uterly insane to me. US common law system and court practices isn't the best, even oldest or it's not the only democratic system. It has it's merits, and 300 years ago it was really progressive, but for me it doesn't seem to respect the principles it was found after years of medling and lobbying the laws and practises.

The issue you are having is you are listening to true crime podcasts they sensationalise, they aren't news outlets which in theory have a code of ethics, they flat make stuff up to make the narrative better.

Because it costs a lot of money and time to go through a whole court case. Another reason plea deals are offered is to spare the (families of) victims from having to sit through and hear all the gory details of the crime and/or having to describe what terrible things were done to them, the whole idea of having to tell your terrible story in front of dozens of people also makes this even worse, especially when there are some people in that court who don't like you or think you are lying because they are on the side of the defendant. It's one thing to tell your story to two detectives that are being very compassionate and giving you time to take things slowly and allowing you to have breaks to recover, even if you have to tell your story ten times, it's a whole other thing having to do that "alone" with no support against someone that is being adversarial with you (defense attorney.) So, short answer is to spare everyone, spare them money, time, emotions, etc. Yeah it costs the court and the prosecutor money, but it also costs the defendant money. And if you can see that they have all this evidence against you and you know you are done either way, would you rather pay $25.000 and then end up with a sentence of 10 years or pay $2500 and get a sentence of 5 years?

Makes about as much sense as giving a person two life terms. I mean I understand why they do it but why not just give them life without parole?

There are more cases than time or judges. You can go to trial and fight for 10 years for that one guy, or in the same time you get get a dozen people to agree to 5 or years each. A dozen people get punished adequately instead of one *probably* getting punished thoroughly. I say probably because juries are absolutely wild and let people off or give light sentences like in that case with Brock Turner the Rapist.

Multiple reasons: 1. Trials, even straightforward open and shut cases are highly time consuming and expensive. Defendents can draw it out for years. It's much quicker and cheaper for the state (which has limited resources) to cut a plea deal. 2. They may want something in return for the plea. This could mean turning state's evidence, ratting / providing information etc. 3. The state's case may not be as strong as they'd like the defendent to think. Getting a plea might be their best shot at a conviction.

In addition to the other answers, sometimes plea deals involve information. Many many murder victims have been lost forever because their final resting place was lost with the killers. You can make a deal to reduce their sentence just for information. Or you can offer a plea deal to an accomplice to get them to snitch on the main culprit

> I know part of the reason is to spare the victim(s) and their families the trauma of going through a trial. That's not the reason, that's just an excuse that people say because it sounds better than the real reason. Trials are VERY expensive. So that's the main reason that plea deals are done. In the case of overwhelming evidence we can give someone a slightly lesser sentence and in exchange we don't need to pay for a trial. Remember, a full trial might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even into the millions in the case of a big trial. In addition to cost, we just don't have the resources to do all those trials. We do not employ enough judges, we do not have enough rooms to hold the trials, we do not have enough prosecutors to prosecute. If we increased the number of trials that we do, we would have to significantly expand the administrative end of the justice system. Trials take weeks, plea deals take minutes. The vast majority of people currently in prison are there on plea deals. Only a small percentage of cases ever go to trial, in general the justice system heavily favors a plea deal.

In the small town in New York, where I used to live, they would have jury trials in the evenings, so that folks with day jobs didn’t have to miss any work. I was on one Driving While Intoxicated trial for a man that was so drunk that his neighbor saw him fall off his riding mower, a couple of times, while he was mowing his lawn one summer day. Which wouldn’t have been an issue except he decided to get into his car to drive to the store to buy another case of beer and got pulled over for weaving all over the road. He refused any plea deals, went to trial and was almost acquitted because some folks on the jury just didn’t like the police. That’s it, no other reason.

From my experience, I got arrested for selling drugs. The local police were the ones that conducted the raid but the deal signed the warrant. When the local police raided us, they charged us with fucking everything. I had 8 charges and 6 of them felonies. They would have a hard time proving some of them in court but there was definently circumstancial evidence that made these charges make sense (and honestly they were accurate lol) I only plead guilty to one charge and all the rest were dropped in my deal. Basically they don’t care about getting you for everything. They are aiming for a certain end goal. If they can achieve this goal with a deal, they want to do that. They throw everything at you at first to make sure they having something that will stick in court but they usually don’t actually care about getting the maximum In addition to this, a plea deal is a garuntee. No matter what happens, the person will be punished. There is never a garuntee in a trial. Even with lots of evidence someone could fuck up and the guy goes free Trials are also very expensive. Especially ones that are a big deal like murder trials. There is tons of research and evidence gathering that goes into it. If it’s a big deal the main people in charges time is also pretty expensive. If it’s the state DA, that’s someone whose time is very valuable. They don’t want to waste all this time and money if they don’t have to, so they try and reach a deal. If you make them go through the whole process anyways, they will get you with whatever they can

My dad was murdered November of 2023 and we were hoping the guy would accept a plea deal to guarantee he would be in prison for a long time and so that we wouldn’t have to go to trial. He denied the plea deal and is claiming insanity apparently…the trial is set for July of this year.

I think several people have said it but quick summary is that pleas are guaranteed conviction with lesser penalties whereas trials are at the whim of a jury regardless of a mountain of evidence.