[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

How is your brother holding up, Chris?

As well as one could expect. Problem is there are issues complicating things that I really can't discuss here. Its not something I think has sunk in yet because its not finished. The perversity of a situation like this is that he and some of the other closely affected people will not accept any of this until the trial is over---when they finally get the conviction, it will hit them like a ton of bricks. I think he is still in the shock/denial/anger phase. A loved one's death from a murder I have learned is very different then death by accident or illness. There's an anger there that doesn't exist in the other situations--another dimension that complicates the process. Think of the World Trade Centers--a mass murder--very different situation with a lot more layers of emotional complexity.

Thanks for asking.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Plea bargaining turns our justice system into a bartering system - for the purpose of expedience. Suggestions that it works, give me the impression of presumed guilt while we claim half-heartedly that suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I would also add that there may be changes required to provide a better way to assess, prevent, and give consequences for law enforcement and prosecutor misconduct when they file trumped up charges. Something I feel to be commonplace since forcing a plea is so compelling.

The oft "guilty until proven innocent" mentality - especially where there are child victims is something of concern to me. I do believe that there are those who can't get a fair trail and their only avenue is to plead to a lesser charge - guilty or not. This works against the integrity of the whole system - harming the cause of victims and the falsely accused equally.

So are you saying there should be no plea bargaining?

Originally Posted by thingamajig

The fact that it has become a major part of our justice system is something I believe to work against cases like the Mulders and something that has become a trap. There is a trap here in that plea bargaining has become standard practice (95% of cases?). In order to end your process quickly in our current system, he may have to be offered a lesser sentence like 25-life or a lesser crime like 2nd degree.

Exactly why aboloshing the death penalty would result in murderers getting less than what they should get as a sentence.

[Knotbored]

Washington state has some ruling (perhaps is a national policy) that only a juty and not a judge can assess the death penalty, so an obviously guilty convict can pleade guilty, avoid a trial and give a jury no chance to give out that penalty. My guess is that pleading also gives someone not guilty but might be found guilty by a jury an opertunity to resolve his innocense while serving a life sentence. I am on the fence whether I agree with avoiding this opertunity to fry a murderer. Maybe a judge should be able to refuse that guilty plea and demand a jury trial to satisfy family and friends of victims?

[elrodqfudp]

In my old age I have learned many things the hard way. One of those things is that rules that are made to fit all usually fit none well.

For many years I was a supporter of the death penalty because it eleminates repeat offenders. Then a new technology was born, DNA. Many people that had been found guilty in the past have been exonerated. My problem then became that the problem with the death penalty is that it is not reversible.

I agree that plea bargaining is used way too much. Not many people know it but one way that lawyers are rated is by their convection ratio.
If a prosecutor plea bargains a case of murder to simple assault, then is the same as a convection. Thus they have a personal interest and gain to use this tactic. One way that this might be reversed is to force our elected officials to use convection as first charged when using this standard.

I only wish that I knew a way to get this implemented.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by elrodqfudp

In my old age I have learned many things the hard way. One of those things is that rules that are made to fit all usually fit none well.

For many years I was a supporter of the death penalty because it eleminates repeat offenders. Then a new technology was born, DNA. Many people that had been found guilty in the past have been exonerated. My problem then became that the problem with the death penalty is that it is not reversible.

I agree that plea bargaining is used way too much. Not many people know it but one way that lawyers are rated is by their convection ratio.
If a prosecutor plea bargains a case of murder to simple assault, then is the same as a convection. Thus they have a personal interest and gain to use this tactic. One way that this might be reversed is to force our elected officials to use convection as first charged when using this standard.

I only wish that I knew a way to get this implemented.

Hey there! A big Texas howdy welcome to you here! We sure are glad you dropped by to visit. This is a really good first post. I hope to see more from you.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by elrodqfudp

In my old age I have learned many things the hard way. One of those things is that rules that are made to fit all usually fit none well.

Man, you got that right. You ought to jump in on the Zero Tolerance Thread about the public school systems.

Originally Posted by elrodqfudp

For many years I was a supporter of the death penalty because it eleminates repeat offenders. Then a new technology was born, DNA. Many people that had been found guilty in the past have been exonerated. My problem then became that the problem with the death penalty is that it is not reversible.

Again, much wisdom in your post. My angle is that I became a supporter of the Death Penalty because of DNA testing. It gave us much stronger ability to determine that we are not putting an innocent person to death. Now... don't get me wrong. I am pretty confident that we have put innocent people to death. I know in the early days (1860-1950) especially in the South, people were put to death, um, excuse me, murdered, simply due to their skin color. But I would like to think to an extent we have surpassed that.

Originally Posted by elrodqfudp

I agree that plea bargaining is used way too much. Not many people know it but one way that lawyers are rated is by their conviction ratio.
If a prosecutor plea bargains a case of murder to simple assault, then is the same as a conviction. Thus they have a personal interest and gain to use this tactic. One way that this might be reversed is to force our elected officials to use conviction as first charged when using this standard.

I only wish that I knew a way to get this implemented.

Good points.

BTW... I changed some words in your quote from convection to conviction. I think that's what you meant.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

As well as one could expect. Problem is there are issues complicating things that I really can't discuss here. Its not something I think has sunk in yet because its not finished. The perversity of a situation like this is that he and some of the other closely affected people will not accept any of this until the trial is over---when they finally get the conviction, it will hit them like a ton of bricks. I think he is still in the shock/denial/anger phase. A loved one's death from a murder I have learned is very different then death by accident or illness. There's an anger there that doesn't exist in the other situations--another dimension that complicates the process. Think of the World Trade Centers--a mass murder--very different situation with a lot more layers of emotional complexity.

Thanks for asking.

Yes. It is similar (but different) when dealing with a suicide of someone close who is perfectly healthy. It is a robbery and a violation, not an accident, but a deliberate theft. It hurts a lot more than some act of God or even a neglegent person who did not intend to kill a loved one. When the killing is deliberate, it brings a whole different level of anger, frustration, and a deep NEED for vengeance.
There is no excusing such a deliberate act.
The crime is not only a crime against the victim, but to all who are close to the victim.

Which brings me to anopther question;

Have they decided on a motive, Chris? Why did the guy do this?
Apologies if you already answered that, but I think it speaks to the crime in a way that either softens the blow, or makes it even more repugnant.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by elrodqfudp

I agree that plea bargaining is used way too much.

I hate to bring reality to the discussion but if you reduced or eliminated plea bargains then more criminals will go free because of the violation of their right to a speedy trial. Without plea bargains the system would shutdown rapidly.

[LANMaster]

.... not to mention all those who take the plea to testify against a worse offender.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

I hate to bring reality to the discussion but if you reduced or eliminated plea bargains then more criminals will go free because of the violation of their right to a speedy trial.

Right, I understood that from previous posts. What I don't know is what it is that prevents speedy trials respectively their starting. Too many criminals or not enough courts etc.?

Without plea bargains the system would shutdown rapidly.

Does that mean the system is due for reform (re-inforcement)? In other words why is this a problem in the US and doesn't seem to be elsewhere?

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Right, I understood that from previous posts. What I don't know is what it is that prevents speedy trials respectively their starting. Too many criminals or not enough courts etc.?

Both.

Does that mean the system is due for reform (re-inforcement)? In other words why is this a problem in the US and doesn't seem to be elsewhere?

?........Not unless you intend on rewriting the US Constitution. As to the second question, our distrust of government power has guaranteed certain rights that are not conducive to the rapid administration of justice.

[Guyzer]

Originally Posted by buffoon

In other words why is this a problem in the US and doesn't seem to be elsewhere?

It isn't exclusive to just the USA. It's just as much of a problem in Canada.

[wacor]

But is not the definition of a speedy trial subjective?

I don't recall there being anything that stipulates what that really is.

Unless you mean a defendant could declare he is prepared to go to trial at arraignment. Seems like most of the time there are delays much longer than needed and don't hear much complaining on either side in general.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by wacor

But is not the definition of a speedy trial subjective?

I don't recall there being anything that stipulates what that really is.

Unless you mean a defendant could declare he is prepared to go to trial at arraignment. Seems like most of the time there are delays much longer than needed and don't hear much complaining on either side in general.

No, it's not subjective, it however isn't subject to a mathematical formula either. I would also note that many, if not all, state constitutions have a requirement for a speed trial as well and usually it's more strict than the federal requirement under the Constitution (but not always).

[wacor]

If there is no mathematical formula then how can you not say it is anything but subjective?

For example some murders go to trial in just a few months while others after a year or two.

Explain please