Re:A Tiny Bank’s Surreal Trip Through a Fraud Prosecution
by shasta on Monday July 27, 2015 @07:20PM
(#9958634)
I don't disagree with any of this. My objection with this entire subthread has been the assertion that plea deals violate rights. I find that crazy. When presented with the facts of a case, a good prosecutor and defense attorney will be able to reasonably assess probabilities for the possible verdicts. Hammering out a plea that's around the average outcome can be beneficial to everyone.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Tiny Bank’s Surreal Trip Through a Fraud Prosecution
by FireBeyond on Monday July 27, 2015 @07:51PM
(#9958753)
I think there should be some onus on the prosecution to show (beyond grand jury levels) some more grounds that they'd reasonably win a case before being allowed to offer a plea deal.
Obviously there's a threshold - how do you do so without a 'mini trial' of sorts (which I get is part of the purpose of the grand jury)? And where the plea deal is initiated by the defendant, then this is waived.
I'm not outright against plea deals. But I do think they are massively overused here in the US, and there needs to be some safeguards that you're not shoehorning someone into something, just to get anything.