Plea bargaining - does it work?

[PsychoSerenity]

Since the other thread became about Seth's definition of rape I thought I'd bring up this point in its own thread.

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) Ken Clarke's proposal is to increase the maximum reduction in sentence (ultimately decided by the judge to what extent or if they use it at all depending on circumstances) from 33% to 50% for cases where the defendant makes an early guilty plea i.e. long before it goes to court.

I think he gives a valid argument, assuming you are going to have such a policy, as to why there should not be an exception made for cases involving violent assault - in that victims are spared having to (in some cases) fight to get it to court, and once they're there, having to re-live their experience for however long the trial goes on while the defendants lawyer effectively accuses them of lying. Also, since it is only a maximum, the judge can still presumably decide not to grant a reduction.

What I'm not so sure about is whether the policy of plea bargaining is a good idea in the first place. Some comments made in the other thread make the point:

That's interesting logic...

The point of offering reduced sentences, according to Clarke, is to get them to plead guilty. The only reason a rational person would plead guilty is if they didn't think it likely that they'd win their court case. The size of the sentence cut won't affect how likely they believe it is that they'll win - only whether or not it's worth pleading guilty, just in case they lose. Either way, it still doesn't tackle the real issue, re-offending (which is what Clarke states he wants to tackle) because in any case it projects the impression that the crime they've committed isn't THAT serious.

The point of offering reduced sentences, according to Clarke, is to get them to plead guilty.

And what if they're innocent? The Innocence Project over in America discovered many cases where the wrong man was locked up for a rape, and in some cases the person confessed and pleaded guilty to avoid a harsher sentence. It looks like Clarke is planning to import one of the flaws of the US system to his own country, he should be learning by their mistakes instead.

I completely agree. Plea bargaining is a load of crap that we should avoid like the plague. It's so easy to get a vulnerable person to believe that they haven't got a chance, even if they know they're innocent.

I assume that Clarke has some reason for thinking it works to make the criminal justice system better, but for all I know it could be nonsense (and I struggle to have a view on it anyway since I think the whole system needs to be scrapped). There is an obvious problem that it might persuade people who are innocent to plead guilty - but how would that (I assume small) percentage of cases compare to the number who are guilty who would otherwise plead innocent?

[charlou]

There is an obvious problem that it might persuade people who are innocent to plead guilty - but how would that (I assume small) percentage of cases compare to the number who are guilty who would otherwise plead innocent?

Therein lies the ethical rub. Is any such "collateral damage" worth it?

[Pappa]

As I understand it in the UK we don't have plea bargaining in the sense it's usually understood to mean. Defendants may get a lighter sentence for an early guilty plea, but they will still be convicted of the original charge, and not a lesser charge. In the US and other places, plea bargaining would usually involve agreeing to plead guilty to say, sexual assault if the rape charge is dropped.

[Arse]

There is an obvious problem that it might persuade people who are innocent to plead guilty - but how would that (I assume small) percentage of cases compare to the number who are guilty who would otherwise plead innocent?

Therein lies the ethical rub. Is any such "collateral damage" worth it?

You need to factor something else into that equation - for every innocent person falsely convicted, a guilty rapist is left free to rape again. Or worse, escalate and start killing, eg, the man who was really guilty of the Central Park rape went on to kill his next victim while five innocent people were in prison for the crime, (after being pressurised into giving false confessions).

[charlou]

Yep, a good point.

[PsychoSerenity]

So if there are all these arguments against it, what are the augments for it? Why on earth is Clarke wanting to increase it?

Does it make a difference that it's only for early pleas? I imagine people who are innocent are unlikely to come right out with a (false) confession straight away - whereas people who are guilty, but genuinely regret whatever it is they've done, might well do so.

Are there studies or statistics that Clarke knows about that actually show overall it has a positive effect? The majority of his proposal seems to be about reducing the prison population and increasing rehabilitation. Perhaps people who admit guilt are easier to rehabilitate? I had a look at the green-paper.pdf but there's rather a lot of information and I couldn't actually find anything relevant to this at all.

[MrJonno]

As mentioned before I don't think plea bargaining happens in the UK in the way it does in the US.
If the police arent absolutely certain they have a good chance of a murder prosecution they will charge you with manslaughter at the same time. You will then be tried for both crimes.

As for people pleading guilty under pressure, if that can be shown the case with be overturned. In the case of rape as its something like only a 4% of cases being reported to a guilty verdict I think this can only improve things

[Arse]

As for people pleading guilty under pressure, if that can be shown the case with be overturned.

Yes, after the person has spent 15 years or so in prison, and a rapist has been running around free.

In the case of rape as its something like only a 4% of cases being reported to a guilty verdict I think this can only improve things

Everybody wants to improve things, but pressuring people to confess with threats of double the sentence are not the way to go about it. There's no point in increasing conviction rates if the convictions are unsound.

[MrJonno]

If someone pleas guilty knowing they are innocent then I have suspicions about their legal representatives?. How many cases have there been of someone even appealing after pleasing guilty of serious crimes, can't have been more than a handful

I'm also curious if they plead guilty go to jail and then claim they were pressured into this what would happen. Normally for an appeal there has to be new evidence but as there wasnt any put to court in the first place how woudl that work?

[Arse]

The Innocence Project says that of the convictions they have over turned 25% involved confessions, guilty pleas or other self incriminating statements. I don't know how many of that 25% actually pleaded guilty, as opposed to confessing in police custody and then recanting the confession in court.

I'm also curious if they plead guilty go to jail and then claim they were pressured into this what would happen. Normally for an appeal there has to be new evidence but as there wasnt any put to court in the first place how woudl that work?

I think most of them are based on scientific evidence that wasn't available at the trial. Other appeals have been based on prosecution witnesses recanting their testimony, alibi witnesses coming forward late in the day, things like that.