Elizabeth Holmes convicted of fraud

[TimFox]

Doesn't the US suffer from excessive plea bargains? Someone might be innocent, but given the choice between coughing and taking a year, or being done for 20+ years in maximum security if you fight it, you gotta be real sure you're going to win. And have the funds to put your side.

How do you estimate that the number of plea bargains is excessive?
Often, in order to clear the docket, the prosecution offers a reduced sentence in the plea bargain offer, which the defendant is well-advised to accept.
How many other cases do you find in your research?

[coppice]

How do you estimate that the number of plea bargains is excessive?

Anything above zero is an abomination.

[nctnico]

Agreed. Any justice system should not try to push suspects into admitting something they didn't do just to get rid of the hassle, costs and/or endure the charade of a trial by jury. The OJ Simpson case was a complete circus act.

[PlainName]

Often, in order to clear the docket, the prosecution offers a reduced sentence in the plea bargain offer, which the defendant is well-advised to accept.

That would be OK-ish, in that there is a reason to plead guilty, if you are, and save everyone the hassle of a costly and time-consuming trial. But a plea bargain typically swaps a lesser charge for the on that would be made if the defendant is 'uncooperative'. (And who's to say the non-plea charge isn't OTT in order to force a plea, with the expectation that the original charge will never have to be proved?)

An example might be:

A prosecutor agrees to take the death penalty off the table as a penalty in a murder case if the defendant agrees to admit to the crime.

That's a pretty steep penalty for not admitting, isn't it? If you're guilty it's pretty good, but if you're innocent you're screwed albeit still alive. So the benefit of plea  bargains is all for the guilty and the innocent just get stuffed.

[SiliconWizard]

That's a pretty steep penalty for not admitting, isn't it? If you're guilty it's pretty good, but if you're innocent you're screwed albeit still alive. So the benefit of plea  bargains is all for the guilty and the innocent just get stuffed.

Yes, that in itself shows how wrong it is, as it can only benefit the guilty - and the underlying goal being not to benefit the guilty (or at least I hope not) but just to reduce the load on the judiciary system (and thus, its cost).

[TimFox]

Here is some actual information about plea bargaining in US Federal courts, seen from closer to the actual courtroom locations than some flags imply:
https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/pleabargainingresearchsummary.pdf
The authors of the summary are well aware of problems and inequity with the practice, where "the overwhelming majority (90 to 95
percent) of cases result in plea bargaining".

From the conclusion of the article:

"Plea bargaining is an inherent part of the criminal justice system. An official ban on
plea bargaining is therefore impractical. This has even been recognized by various scholars
and policymakers who argue that the system is in need of reform (Barkow, 2006; Bibas,
2001, 2004; Bohm, 2006; Bowen, 2009; Brown, 2005; Gorr, 2000; Guidorizzi, 1998;
Ma, 2002; Stuntz, 2004; Wright, 2005; Zacharias, 1998)"

[PlainName]

From the conclusion of the article:

"Plea bargaining is an inherent part of the criminal justice system. An official ban on
plea bargaining is therefore impractical. This has even been recognized by various scholars
and policymakers who argue that the system is in need of reform (Barkow, 2006; Bibas,
2001, 2004; Bohm, 2006; Bowen, 2009; Brown, 2005; Gorr, 2000; Guidorizzi, 1998;
Ma, 2002; Stuntz, 2004; Wright, 2005; Zacharias, 1998)"

And

"the overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining"

That is terrible. What makes it so is that the research summary says straight out that prosecutors have too much discretion, that prosecutor "have been found to use threats that coerce defendants into accepting pleas to secure a conviction when the evidence in a case is insubstantial", that "those who go to trial are more likely to receive harsher sentences than those who accept a plea when comparable offenses are considered", etc.

The justification for glossing over the injustice is simply that they don't have time or resources to let everyone exercise their rights. That 90 to 95 percent of cases result in a plea suggests that 20 to 25 percent of those pleading guilty are actually innocent - the UK statistics say 78 to 83 depending on court, and even here not all those found guilty are actually so.

Just one innocent pleading guilty because they are coerced to do so is too many, don't you think?