****
Department of Justice Mission Statement:
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
Is this helpful in determining what ‘undermines’ the CJS? Can it be used on either side as ‘the standard’? How so?
****
For a game theoretical approach to PB which I think more helps the CON go to
The ABSTRACT and first paragraphs as well as the last page or so are most relevant (no one needs MATH in a debate round!). The focus is on the prosecutor’s resources and the information both sides have before bargaining (only the defendant KNOWS whether she did the crime). They conclude that PB will not catch any innocents under their model.
Game theory is the study of decision making. One of the more famous examples of GT is the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”—you and a codefendant are both charge with a crime which carries 25 years to life. The prosecutor offers each of you a deal for 1 year if you inform on the other, while the other will receive 25 to life. If both of you keep silent, you will both be acquitted. If you both tell, you'll each get 5 years. You will not know what your codefendant does. What do you do? Why?
****
A criminal lawyer’s take on the decision to plea bargain:
I want to discover what evidence the State has. This is the flip side of my not wanting to know whether my client is actually guilty. You see, it is important that the client’s decision on whether to go to trial be based on the evidence. This is because, often, the State has no case even though you are actually guilty. Likewise, the State sometimes has an overwhelming case against someone who is innocent, and it is sometime better to take a plea bargain in this situation rather than risk a trial. The best move is not necessarily based on actual guilt or innocent, but based on the evidence.
David F. Stoddard, Attorney at Law
Isn’t what is actually done ‘in the trenches’ the key to what ‘undermines’ the CJS? Or should this be argued strictly at the theoretical level? Can both sides win on the ‘practical’ level indicated by this card?
****
Other links:
False confessions are a much greater cause of bad convictions than PB:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98dd101a846085256eb400500c01/4a6e9aa597092057052573ed0056ffa3?OpenDocument
Juries are a big source of bad confessions:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070628161330.htm
http://ocdw.com/pdf/032607/Risinger.pdf
Many innocent people are in prison:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/08/how-many-more-are-innocent
Benefits of well-done PB:
The social psychology research indicates that implementing procedural justice norms not only may increase defendant satisfaction with plea-bargained outcomes (even if the outcomes themselves remain substantively unchanged), but also may contribute to the perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system and ultimately enhance defendants' levels of voluntary compliance with legal rules and authorities.12 There are, in short, good reasons to believe that greater attentiveness by prosecutors to procedural justice may increase the cooperativeness of defendants whiletheyare under criminaljusticesupervision and decrease their likelihood of recidivism.13
PLEA BARGAINING AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE Michael M. O'Hear* --Georgia Law Review 42:408, 412
http://law.marquette.edu/s3/site/images/faculty/GeorgiaLR.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment