the necessity of jury?

[Dark567]

I think it's worth pointing out that the reason for the high incarceration rates probably has more to do with the prevalence of plea bargaining in the United States rather than the specifics of the jury system. The linked article notes a statistic that a whopping 90% of criminal cases are resolved in a plea bargain before going to trial. This is really rather remarkable if you think about it: the vast majority of prisoners in the United States have gone to prison without ever having a legitimate chance to defend themselves.

Also the much longer penalties for crimes certainly don't help.

[mmmcannibalism]

On another note, you say that the US system in general favours the defense. I am sure you are right on that, but the US also has very high numbers of convictions and incarcerations, among the highest per capita in the world. That suggests the US system as a whole is not especially defendant-friendly. Perhaps defendant-friendly courts are a necessary counterweight against other parts of the system, such as strict laws?

Again, I am not trying to judge the US system. For all I know, those high incarceration rates are a sign that other countries are too lax on criminality, or that the US is particularly criminal, or just a matter of local taste. It just doesn't seem to be defendant-friendly, from the outside.

I think it's worth pointing out that the reason for the high incarceration rates probably has more to do with the prevalence of plea bargaining in the United States rather than the specifics of the jury system. The linked article notes a statistic that a whopping 90% of criminal cases are resolved in a plea bargain before going to trial. This is really rather remarkable if you think about it: the vast majority of prisoners in the United States have gone to prison without ever having a legitimate chance to defend themselves.

Um, how does choosing a plea bargain not count as having a legitimate chance to defend themselves? There is an argument that the system is set up in a way that overly encourages plea bargains I'm sure, but people choosing a plea over a trial doesn't count as being deprived of the chance at a trial.

[Arrian]

This is really rather remarkable if you think about it: the vast majority of prisoners in the United States have gone to prison without ever having a legitimate chance to defend themselves.

Woah woah woah, take a step back there.

Plea bargaining isn't imposed from the outside, the defendant chooses whether to accept the bargain or defend themself in court. What's more accurate is to say that the vast majority of prisoners in the United States felt that their chances of successfully defending themselves in court was so low that they took a guaranteed, but lighter, sentence instead of facing a jury.

That's still taking a big leap, since 90% of criminal cases does not imply 90% of the people who are incarcerated. It would not be surprising to find that, while the vast majority of misdemeanors with minor punishments are plead instead of taken to court, felonies might have a might higher rate of going to trial.

[SlyReaper]

This is really rather remarkable if you think about it: the vast majority of prisoners in the United States have gone to prison without ever having a legitimate chance to defend themselves.

Woah woah woah, take a step back there.

Plea bargaining isn't imposed from the outside, the defendant chooses whether to accept the bargain or defend themself in court. What's more accurate is to say that the vast majority of prisoners in the United States felt that their chances of successfully defending themselves in court was so low that they took a guaranteed, but lighter, sentence instead of facing a jury.

It's still very dodgy. Innocent people can be tempted to accept a punishment they don't deserve, for fear that they will suffer a worse punishment if they don't. Basically, it's a confession under duress. Conversely, actual criminals can get away with lighter sentences through this system.

[Zamfir]

On the other hand, innocent people might be punished at full rate without the plea bargain. It is not clear-cut that the net effect is worse. although I can imagine that the standard rates get increased once there are a lot of plea bargains, after which the plea rate goes up, full punishment increase again, until you end up with a system were a plea results in the punishment originally intended for the full trial. But I do not know if this happens.

[PAstrychef]

One big reason the court system pushes for plea bargains is to reduce the number of jury trials, because trials are expensive and time consuming and you never really know what a jury is going to do. Plea bargains guarantee that a presumed offender gets some jail-time, which is the USA's version of justice and punishment. Plea bargains also allow for a lower burden of proof, because the DA can convince the suspect that there is more against them than there really is, in effect getting the suspect to indite himself.

[LaserGuy]

This is really rather remarkable if you think about it: the vast majority of prisoners in the United States have gone to prison without ever having a legitimate chance to defend themselves.

Woah woah woah, take a step back there.

Plea bargaining isn't imposed from the outside, the defendant chooses whether to accept the bargain or defend themself in court. What's more accurate is to say that the vast majority of prisoners in the United States felt that their chances of successfully defending themselves in court was so low that they took a guaranteed, but lighter, sentence instead of facing a jury.

No, I don't agree with that statement at all. I would venture that the vast majority of those people would probably stand a fairly decent chance of being acquitted. According to the Innocence Project, about 25% of cases where they exonerated someone through DNA evidence involved a false confession. The government is actively coercing people to give up their constitutional right to a fair trial by using trial penalties so ridiculously high that no rational person would ever go to trial. The analysis in the linked paper notes that sentences for guilty verdicts average 9 times as high as those from guilty pleas (pg 23). In Britain, incidentally, the reduction in penalty can be reduced by no more than 1/3 for a guilty plea (pg 38). If you were innocent of a crime, but had little knowledge of law and couldn't properly assess how strong the case was against you, would you be willing to risk a 63 year sentence rather than just accept a 7 year sentence?

That's still taking a big leap, since 90% of criminal cases does not imply 90% of the people who are incarcerated. It would not be surprising to find that, while the vast majority of misdemeanors with minor punishments are plead instead of taken to court, felonies might have a might higher rate of going to trial.

From the linked article, page 8:

By the 1920s, court records show that
plea bargained guilty pleas had become the most common
method of case disposition in felony cases12 and the practice
steadily increased until, by the 1970s, about 90% of all felony
cases were concluded through guilty pleas. Today, the guilty plea
rate in the United States is about 96%, with bench trials accounting
for 3% and jury trials 2% of all convictions.1

One big reason the court system pushes for plea bargains is to reduce the number of jury trials, because trials are expensive and time consuming and you never really know what a jury is going to do. Plea bargains guarantee that a presumed offender gets some jail-time, which is the USA's version of justice and punishment. Plea bargains also allow for a lower burden of proof, because the DA can convince the suspect that there is more against them than there really is, in effect getting the suspect to indite himself.

This seems to be a great argument against both plea bargaining and jury trials.

[edit]Fixed quotations

[dumbzebra]

(haven´r read the other posts, im just answering to the original question)

Then do so first.

Welcome to SB, please read the section rules at your earliest convenience.

- Az

[MiB24601]

If you were innocent of a crime, but had little knowledge of law and couldn't properly assess how strong the case was against you, would you be willing to risk a 63 year sentence rather than just accept a 7 year sentence?

This is why the defendant has a lawyer who is trained in the law and can properly assess how strong the case is against the defendant. If the defendant is unlucky enough to have an incompetent lawyer, there is a system in place so defendant's have suffered from the ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, that's not to say that the system is perfect but plea bargain's aren't the biggest problem.

[dumbzebra]

(read all the other posts, now im answering the original question)

Well in Germany we don´t have a jury, and things kinda work out well too, so no I don´t think it´s necessary.

[LaserGuy]

If you were innocent of a crime, but had little knowledge of law and couldn't properly assess how strong the case was against you, would you be willing to risk a 63 year sentence rather than just accept a 7 year sentence?

This is why the defendant has a lawyer who is trained in the law and can properly assess how strong the case is against the defendant. If the defendant is unlucky enough to have an incompetent lawyer, there is a system in place so defendant's have suffered from the ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, that's not to say that the system is perfect but plea bargain's aren't the biggest problem.

According to the stat I quoted earlier, over 90% of felony cases end in a guilty plea. I would contend that this would imply that either the odds in a jury/bench trial are ridiculously stacked against the defendant, or the defense lawyers are, in fact, not assessing the cases properly (or are colluding with DAs to expediate the system as much as possible).

Plea bargains may not be the single biggest problem with the law (I'd say the biggest being that the law is far to complex for the average person to have a reasonable ability to assess whether a given action is likely to be a crime), but I would say that the problem of plea bargaining dwarfs the problems associated with the jury system.

[Dark567]

According to the stat I quoted earlier, over 90% of felony cases end in a guilty plea. I would contend that this would imply that either the odds in a jury/bench trial are ridiculously stacked against the defendant, or the defense lawyers are, in fact, not assessing the cases properly (or are colluding with DAs to expediate the system as much as possible).

The possibility that most defendants in felony cases are guilty hasn't occurred to you? I mean it is another possibility.

[LaserGuy]

According to the stat I quoted earlier, over 90% of felony cases end in a guilty plea. I would contend that this would imply that either the odds in a jury/bench trial are ridiculously stacked against the defendant, or the defense lawyers are, in fact, not assessing the cases properly (or are colluding with DAs to expediate the system as much as possible).

The possibility that most defendants in felony cases are guilty hasn't occurred to you? I mean it is another possibility.

Presumption of innocence dictates that I shouldn't. Given that both innocent and guilty people are both more likely to go take a plea bargain than go to trial, I don't see any particular way to deconvolve them.

That said, I don't think that trial penalties are appropriate for the guilty any more than they are for the innocent. Suppose you have two people who both collude equally to commit the same crime. Both are offered a deal whereby they can plead guilty and get a 5 year sentence, or face trial. One pleads guilty and gets 5 years. The other goes to trial and loses, and gets 45 years. Why should one person be punished much more harshly for the same crime, simply because that one chose to exercise their right to a trial? Does this seem just to you?

[Azrael]

According to the stat I quoted earlier, over 90% of felony cases end in a guilty plea....

The possibility that most defendants in felony cases are guilty hasn't occurred to you? I mean it is another possibility.

Presumption of innocence dictates that I shouldn't. ...

No, the presumption of innocence does not indicate ... well, anything statistically. Successful police work *should* thoroughly stack the queue with guilty individuals. This, of course, is not a reason to judge a specific individual based on the group statistic.

People aren't (in the vast majority of cases) just arrested off the street for no reason at all -- it's not a random distribution what so ever.

[MiB24601]

The difference between a plea bargain and the post-conviction sentencing isn't supposed to be as drastic as your example of 5 years and 45 years respectively. Granted, it can occur when considering minimum sentences with parole and maximum sentences without parole but that occurs more often in television's courtroom procedurals than in real life court rooms. A defendant who is being offered a light plea bargain will most likely not end up being sentenced to the maximum following a trial.

If a defendant is innocent, then they will most likely be found not guilty. As you mentioned, LaserGuy, the defendant has the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt. That being said, an innocent person would must likely go to trial since the prosecution shouldn't be able to prove their guilt. Meanwhile, a guilty person who knows that the prosecution will be able to prove their guilty would most likely go with a plea bargain.

Now, the system isn't perfect, which is why many people devote their time, energy and resources to groups like the Innocence Project, which exist to protect those who have fallen through the cracks. However, even those groups aren't claiming that the system is so broken that most innocent people who are charged end up being found guilty. The simplest explanation for why 90% of felony cases end in plea bargains is because in 90% of the felony cases, the prosecution has a strong enough case to convince a defendant not to go to trial. It would also seem to follow that the reason why the prosecution has such a strong case is because the defendant actually is guilty.

[LaserGuy]

The difference between a plea bargain and the post-conviction sentencing isn't supposed to be as drastic as your example of 5 years and 45 years respectively. Granted, it can occur when considering minimum sentences with parole and maximum sentences without parole but that occurs more often in television's courtroom procedurals than in real life court rooms. A defendant who is being offered a light plea bargain will most likely not end up being sentenced to the maximum following a trial.

That figure comes from the study I quoted about 6 replies up the thread. This isn't TV. That figure is average based off of real data. Some trial penalties are in fact much higher. If it isn't supposed to be, that means that the plea bargaining system is broken, which is exactly my point.

If a defendant is innocent, then they will most likely be found not guilty. As you mentioned, LaserGuy, the defendant has the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt. That being said, an innocent person would must likely go to trial since the prosecution shouldn't be able to prove their guilt. Meanwhile, a guilty person who knows that the prosecution will be able to prove their guilty would most likely go with a plea bargain.

Or maybe the defendant doesn't have the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to fight a trial? If the client has only $1000 to his name, do you think his defense lawyer is going to have much incentive to try to prove their innocence? Or are they going to suggest they just cut a deal and try for a new client? Also, if that were the case, one would probably expect that the conviction rate at trial ought to be rather low, wouldn't we?

Now, the system isn't perfect, which is why many people devote their time, energy and resources to groups like the Innocence Project, which exist to protect those who have fallen through the cracks. However, even those groups aren't claiming that the system is so broken that most innocent people who are charged end up being found guilty. The simplest explanation for why 90% of felony cases end in plea bargains is because in 90% of the felony cases, the prosecution has a strong enough case to convince a defendant not to go to trial. It would also seem to follow that the reason why the prosecution has such a strong case is because the defendant actually is guilty.

Innocence Project's own figures (also quoted above) find that about 25% of the people they free gave false confessions.

[MiB24601]

That figure comes from the study I quoted about 6 replies up the thread. This isn't TV. That figure is average based off of real data. Some trial penalties are in fact much higher. If it isn't supposed to be, that means that the plea bargaining system is broken, which is exactly my point.

That number comes BEFORE the data was normalized. AFTER the data was normalized to account for factors such as the severity of the crime, the difference drops dramatically (page 23 of the article you cited). The difference between prison terms as a result of plea-bargains and as a result of post-conviction sentencing was approximately 44 months. While that is certainly a significant difference, it's not going to be the difference between 5 years in prison and 45 years in prison. It's a short enough difference that it is still fundamentally fair to the defendant but long enough to convince a defendant who will almost certainly be found guilty to decide not to push for a trial.

Or maybe the defendant doesn't have the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to fight a trial? If the client has only $1000 to his name, do you think his defense lawyer is going to have much incentive to try to prove their innocence? Or are they going to suggest they just cut a deal and try for a new client? Also, if that were the case, one would probably expect that the conviction rate at trial ought to be rather low, wouldn't we?

There are many options for defendant's who don't have much in the way of cash. Public defenders and court-appointed attorneys are paid for by the state, not the client. And despite what people say about PDs, their offices consist of some of the best lawyers out there.

It's also important to remember that if a lawyer was found to be ineffective at trial, the defendant will be abel to get a new trial. Additionally, a lawyer will not want to be found to have been ineffective since that can bring censure by the bar association and could even lead to disbarment. So, why should lawyer's want to try their best? Because if they don't, then they may not be lawyers for very much longer.

Innocence Project's own figures (also quoted above) find that about 25% of the people they free gave false confessions.

True but in almost all of those cases, a proper attorney should have been able to have the confession be thrown out or have been able to show the jury that the confession was false. One of the most important things the Innocence Project does is making sure attorneys know how to recognize a false confession and how to have it thrown out. If these defendants had proper attorneys initially, then they most likely would not have been falsely convicted.* Now, since the system isn't perfect, it is very important that groups like the Innocence Project exist. However, no reputable group is claiming that most innocent people who are charged end up being found guilty. The wrongful convictions these groups find are a minority of cases, where innocent people have unfortunately been sent to prison.

* Of course, it isn't always the defense attorney's fault. Sometimes the prosecution is rife with misconduct and the judge turns a blind eye and there is nothing the defense attorney can be done. However, when reading through cases that involve a wrongfully convicted defendant, you will usually see something that talks about what happened to the defense attorney and it often involves the lawyer being disbarred.

[zookap]

I think cutting out the jury protect from the possibility of bribery and corruption, I think it would make it inevitable. Besides, the American people are always the highest authority in this country. The government gets all their power to write binding laws by our consent which is why we have a practice called "jury nullification." Jury nullification is when a jury agrees that the defendant DID violate the law in the way he is being accused, but they find him not guilty because they morally object to the law. I don't think anyone would disagree that there are a lot of ridiculous laws out there that practically nobody consented to. The times I have sat in court left me in awe of how boldly the "justice" system uses it's power to raise funds and bully us. If we get rid of the jury of American citizens we do so at our own risk. That jury means we always have the last word on what is the law in our country.

[LaserGuy]

That figure comes from the study I quoted about 6 replies up the thread. This isn't TV. That figure is average based off of real data. Some trial penalties are in fact much higher. If it isn't supposed to be, that means that the plea bargaining system is broken, which is exactly my point.

That number comes BEFORE the data was normalized. AFTER the data was normalized to account for factors such as the severity of the crime, the difference drops dramatically (page 23 of the article you cited). The difference between prison terms as a result of plea-bargains and as a result of post-conviction sentencing was approximately 44 months. While that is certainly a significant difference, it's not going to be the difference between 5 years in prison and 45 years in prison. It's a short enough difference that it is still fundamentally fair to the defendant but long enough to convince a defendant who will almost certainly be found guilty to decide not to push for a trial.

Well, that depends on the severity of the crime. 44 months added to a 6 month sentence is still extremely severe. 44 months on a 5 year sentence is still severe. Regardless, I would hardly consider a system where confessions are extracted using any form of coercion as "fundamentally fair".

It's also important to remember that if a lawyer was found to be ineffective at trial, the defendant will be abel to get a new trial. Additionally, a lawyer will not want to be found to have been ineffective since that can bring censure by the bar association and could even lead to disbarment. So, why should lawyer's want to try their best? Because if they don't, then they may not be lawyers for very much longer.

The problem isn't cases that go to trial. If the lawyer sells out the client on a bad deal, how would the client ever know? What recourse could they possibly take?

Innocence Project's own figures (also quoted above) find that about 25% of the people they free gave false confessions.

True but in almost all of those cases, a proper attorney should have been able to have the confession be thrown out or have been able to show the jury that the confession was false. One of the most important things the Innocence Project does is making sure attorneys know how to recognize a false confession and how to have it thrown out. If these defendants had proper attorneys initially, then they most likely would not have been falsely convicted.* Now, since the system isn't perfect, it is very important that groups like the Innocence Project exist. However, no reputable group is claiming that most innocent people who are charged end up being found guilty. The wrongful convictions these groups find are a minority of cases, where innocent people have unfortunately been sent to prison.

Again, you're assuming that cases typically go to trial. They don't. Very few people are "found guilty"; the vast majority of cases end in confession--a guilty plea by the defendant. These confessions don't--and can't--get thrown out because there is no trial. The question is, for every one case where the Innocence Project was able to produce DNA exoneration of a defendant, how many equivalent cases lacking DNA also exist? How many cases have they never heard of? For obvious reasons, estimating the number of innocent people who end up in prison is extraordinarily challenging (never mind those who accept probation, fines, or whatnot ), but, for what it's worth, Innocence suggests the figure is on the order of 2-5%--somewhere in the neighbhourhood of 50,000 people. They also add that very few public officials (police, DAs, technicians) have ever been held accountable for a wrongful conviciton.

[MiB24601]

Well, that depends on the severity of the crime. 44 months added to a 6 month sentence is still extremely severe. 44 months on a 5 year sentence is still severe. Regardless, I would hardly consider a system where confessions are extracted using any form of coercion as "fundamentally fair".

These are for felonies. In the US, a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year so talking about sentences of 6 months has nothing to do with this. Additionally, 44 months is the AVERAGE. We're not talking about 44 months being added to all sentences as a result of going to trial. Look back over the numbers in the paper you cited.

Additionally, as I have mentioned earlier, confessions are often inadmissible. If a confession was extracted using fundamentally unfair means, it cannot be used against the defendant.

The problem isn't cases that go to trial. If the lawyer sells out the client on a bad deal, how would the client ever know? What recourse could they possibly take?

Not all deals are equal. No one is going to claim they are. Depending on many factors, such as the evidence the prosecution has and the circumstances of the case will drastically affect how "good" the deal is. However, if a deal is "bad," it can be thrown out on appeal, which is often handled by a different lawyer than the trial attorney. Additionally, the original deal has to be approved by the judge, and while there are judges who don't treat defendants well, many judges do care about fairness and won't allow a bad plea bargaining agreement to go through.

Again, you're assuming that cases typically go to trial. They don't. Very few people are "found guilty"; the vast majority of cases end in confession--a guilty plea by the defendant. These confessions don't--and can't--get thrown out because there is no trial. The question is, for every one case where the Innocence Project was able to produce DNA exoneration of a defendant, how many equivalent cases lacking DNA also exist? How many cases have they never heard of? For obvious reasons, estimating the number of innocent people who end up in prison is extraordinarily challenging (never mind those who accept probation, fines, or whatnot ), but, for what it's worth, Innocence suggests the figure is on the order of 2-5%--somewhere in the neighbhourhood of 50,000 people. They also add that very few public officials (police, DAs, technicians) have ever been held accountable for a wrongful conviciton.

Actually, most guilty pleas are nolo contendre, which is different from a confession. So, no, most cases do not end in confession. However, I will agree that many suspects do confess. If a confession can't be thrown, it's because it's a good confession. They were caught and when confronted with the evidence against them, they confessed. Remember, people aren't (in the vast majority of cases) just arrested off the street for no reason at all -- it's not a random distribution what so ever.

And by the way, there are many cases where public officials, such as police, DA's and technicians who HAVE been held accountable because of a wrongful conviction as a result of malfeasance. A public official isn't going to be held accountable for a wrongful conviction that isn't their fault. It's not the DA's fault if a lab technician fakes DNA results.

[LaserGuy]

Well, that depends on the severity of the crime. 44 months added to a 6 month sentence is still extremely severe. 44 months on a 5 year sentence is still severe. Regardless, I would hardly consider a system where confessions are extracted using any form of coercion as "fundamentally fair".

These are for felonies. In the US, a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year so talking about sentences of 6 months has nothing to do with this. Additionally, 44 months is the AVERAGE. We're not talking about 44 months being added to all sentences as a result of going to trial. Look back over the numbers in the paper you cited.

A relative measure would have been more useful. Unfortunately, they don't cite one in the paper that I can see.

Additionally, as I have mentioned earlier, confessions are often inadmissible. If a confession was extracted using fundamentally unfair means, it cannot be used against the defendant.

A guilty plea is a confession. The defendant is required to admit to the factual circumstances surrounding the case and accept the punishment befitting the crime. While some jurisdictions allow for pleas of no contest or Alford pleas, many do not, or only do under severely restricted circumstances (particularly in the latter case). Alford pleas are particularly noteworthy in this respect because the defendant is essentially admitting that the only reason they aren't defending themselves is because of the trial penalty; they maintain that they are in fact innocent, but are unwilling to contest the charges. Both ought to raise serious moral flags--if a person is not found factually guilty of a crime, and does not admit to commiting the crime (or, in fact, may nonetheless proclaim their innocence), on what grounds ought they be punished? How can the relavent stakeholders--courts, victims, the DA, or the public at large--be certain that the person who is serving time in fact the person who committed the crime?

Not all deals are equal. No one is going to claim they are. Depending on many factors, such as the evidence the prosecution has and the circumstances of the case will drastically affect how "good" the deal is. However, if a deal is "bad," it can be thrown out on appeal, which is often handled by a different lawyer than the trial attorney. Additionally, the original deal has to be approved by the judge, and while there are judges who don't treat defendants well, many judges do care about fairness and won't allow a bad plea bargaining agreement to go through.

With the advent of mandatory minima and three strikes-type legislation for various sentences, the role of the judge in sentencing is substantially reduced.

Actually, most guilty pleas are nolo contendre, which is different from a confession. So, no, most cases do not end in confession. However, I will agree that many suspects do confess. If a confession can't be thrown, it's because it's a good confession. They were caught and when confronted with the evidence against them, they confessed. Remember, people aren't (in the vast majority of cases) just arrested off the street for no reason at all -- it's not a random distribution what so ever.

There's a great deal of research done on the subject of false confessions. If the police lie about the evidence against a person and use that leverage to convince the person to confess suggesting that doing so will result in leniency on the part of the DA (even if they aren't guilty and there is no evidence to suggest they are), for example, the confession will still hold up in court. And if a trial is held, the false confession is often a powerful piece of evidence that can overwhelm even strong physical evidence that excludes the suspect.

And by the way, there are many cases where public officials, such as police, DA's and technicians who HAVE been held accountable because of a wrongful conviction as a result of malfeasance. A public official isn't going to be held accountable for a wrongful conviction that isn't their fault. It's not the DA's fault if a lab technician fakes DNA results.

I don't have any specific figures on this one. Innocence Project's website says that such cases are extraordinarily rare.

[MiB24601]

A guilty plea is a confession. The defendant is required to admit to the factual circumstances surrounding the case and accept the punishment befitting the crime. While some jurisdictions allow for pleas of no contest or Alford pleas, many do not, or only do under severely restricted circumstances (particularly in the latter case). Alford pleas are particularly noteworthy in this respect because the defendant is essentially admitting that the only reason they aren't defending themselves is because of the trial penalty; they maintain that they are in fact innocent, but are unwilling to contest the charges. Both ought to raise serious moral flags--if a person is not found factually guilty of a crime, and does not admit to commiting the crime (or, in fact, may nonetheless proclaim their innocence), on what grounds ought they be punished? How can the relavent stakeholders--courts, victims, the DA, or the public at large--be certain that the person who is serving time in fact the person who committed the crime?

Alford pleas exist because of the Fifth amendment. There is no questionable moral ground here, it's a constitutional issue. And the relevant stakeholders can rest assured in the evidence that the prosecution has proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

With the advent of mandatory minima and three strikes-type legislation for various sentences, the role of the judge in sentencing is substantially reduced.

It's still the role of the judge to approve plea agreements.

There's a great deal of research done on the subject of false confessions. If the police lie about the evidence against a person and use that leverage to convince the person to confess suggesting that doing so will result in leniency on the part of the DA (even if they aren't guilty and there is no evidence to suggest they are), for example, the confession will still hold up in court. And if a trial is held, the false confession is often a powerful piece of evidence that can overwhelm even strong physical evidence that excludes the suspect.

Not all confessions are false. In fact, with the help of the Innocence Project, the circumstances that lead to false confessions are decreasing. However, I disagree with your assumption that false confessions will overwhelm strong physical evidence. Perhaps in the days before the Innocence Project made such an effort to have false confessions be dismissed but that's certainly not the case today.

I don't have any specific figures on this one. Innocence Project's website says that such cases are extraordinarily rare.

There was an incident where a forensic lab technician was faking test results in New York, which re-opened all the cases and the tech was dismissed. Last reports indicate that the DA was preparing to bring charges against the tech. There was additionally similar incident in 2005 with a DNA lab tech in Houston, where the tech was dismissed and brought on charges. The cases the tech was involved in are still being re-examined to make sure those who were wrongfully convicted are being freed. The DA in the Duke rape case was dismissed after he committed prosecutorial misconduct. These are just a handful of examples. When there is wrongdoing which leads to wrongful convictions, there are consequences to those who committed the wrongdoing.

[LaserGuy]

A guilty plea is a confession. The defendant is required to admit to the factual circumstances surrounding the case and accept the punishment befitting the crime. While some jurisdictions allow for pleas of no contest or Alford pleas, many do not, or only do under severely restricted circumstances (particularly in the latter case). Alford pleas are particularly noteworthy in this respect because the defendant is essentially admitting that the only reason they aren't defending themselves is because of the trial penalty; they maintain that they are in fact innocent, but are unwilling to contest the charges. Both ought to raise serious moral flags--if a person is not found factually guilty of a crime, and does not admit to commiting the crime (or, in fact, may nonetheless proclaim their innocence), on what grounds ought they be punished? How can the relavent stakeholders--courts, victims, the DA, or the public at large--be certain that the person who is serving time in fact the person who committed the crime?

Alford pleas exist because of the Fifth amendment. There is no questionable moral ground here, it's a constitutional issue. And the relevant stakeholders can rest assured in the evidence that the prosecution has proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

No, because the prosecution hasn't had the chance to test their case in court at all. The prosecution may well have evidence that could prove the suspect is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but it is not necessary for them to have it in order to extract a plea bargain. If the evidence hasn't been tested, it can't be assured that it is actually valid.

There's a great deal of research done on the subject of false confessions. If the police lie about the evidence against a person and use that leverage to convince the person to confess suggesting that doing so will result in leniency on the part of the DA (even if they aren't guilty and there is no evidence to suggest they are), for example, the confession will still hold up in court. And if a trial is held, the false confession is often a powerful piece of evidence that can overwhelm even strong physical evidence that excludes the suspect.

Not all confessions are false. In fact, with the help of the Innocence Project, the circumstances that lead to false confessions are decreasing. However, I disagree with your assumption that false confessions will overwhelm strong physical evidence. Perhaps in the days before the Innocence Project made such an effort to have false confessions be dismissed but that's certainly not the case today.

Well, no, of course not all confessions are false. I'm sure that most of them are true. My concerns are specifically that:
-The plea bargain system provides a strong incentive for innocent people to confess to crimes that did not commit, even if they are likely to be cleared at trial. Coupled with the propensity for certain "at risk" groups of people to confess to crimes they didn't commit under psychological stress, the system produces more false positives than other alternatives (eg. no plea bargain or no trial penalty).
-The plea bargain system provides a substantial penalty for people, innocent or guilty, to use their constitutional rights, rather than applying the penalty befitting the crime.
-The plea bargain system disproportionately harms the poor, uneducated, or mentally unfit, who may not have the resources or capacity to properly defend themselves at trial.
And although we haven't really discussed this...
-The plea bargain system probably results in far more people ending up in jail or having criminal records, because it encourages DAs to take on more marginal cases in hopes of striking a deal, and encourages people to accept those deals rather than defending themselves at trial.

I'm less optimistic of your assessment of the impact of the Innocence Project on the system as a whole. From the literature they list on their site, it sounds more like that they have to fight tooth and nail for every conviction that they overturn. The major recommendation on false confessions from Innocence Project (and suggested in both of the papers that I cited, coincidentally) is that all interrogations should be videotaped; this hasn't happened. Innocence Project only deals with major crimes involving rape or murder, and is only able to help in the subset of those cases where there is DNA evidence available. There are many cases where such physical evidence would be unavailable, and a (false) confession may well be the strongest piece of evidence against a defendant. This is a hard thing to judge, of course, simply because we don't really have a baseline to compare to.

[MiB24601]

No, because the prosecution hasn't had the chance to test their case in court at all. The prosecution may well have evidence that could prove the suspect is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but it is not necessary for them to have it in order to extract a plea bargain. If the evidence hasn't been tested, it can't be assured that it is actually valid.

Once again, this comes down to effective assistance of counsel. If a defendant has an effective lawyer, then the defendant won't be bowled over by invalid evidence. If the defendant doesn't have an effective lawyer, then the case can be re-opened on appeal or with a habeas petition or a PCRA petition. What this means is that the greatest issue is the time constraints involved in the judicial system. That is my biggest issue with the justice system, where innocent people can be tied up by red tape for years before they are let out of prison for something they had nothing to do with.

Well, no, of course not all confessions are false. I'm sure that most of them are true. My concerns are specifically that:
-The plea bargain system provides a strong incentive for innocent people to confess to crimes that did not commit, even if they are likely to be cleared at trial. Coupled with the propensity for certain "at risk" groups of people to confess to crimes they didn't commit under psychological stress, the system produces more false positives than other alternatives (eg. no plea bargain or no trial penalty).
-The plea bargain system provides a substantial penalty for people, innocent or guilty, to use their constitutional rights, rather than applying the penalty befitting the crime.
-The plea bargain system disproportionately harms the poor, uneducated, or mentally unfit, who may not have the resources or capacity to properly defend themselves at trial.
And although we haven't really discussed this...
-The plea bargain system probably results in far more people ending up in jail or having criminal records, because it encourages DAs to take on more marginal cases in hopes of striking a deal, and encourages people to accept those deals rather than defending themselves at trial.

I'm less optimistic of your assessment of the impact of the Innocence Project on the system as a whole. From the literature they list on their site, it sounds more like that they have to fight tooth and nail for every conviction that they overturn. The major recommendation on false confessions from Innocence Project (and suggested in both of the papers that I cited, coincidentally) is that all interrogations should be videotaped; this hasn't happened. Innocence Project only deals with major crimes involving rape or murder, and is only able to help in the subset of those cases where there is DNA evidence available. There are many cases where such physical evidence would be unavailable, and a (false) confession may well be the strongest piece of evidence against a defendant. This is a hard thing to judge, of course, simply because we don't really have a baseline to compare to.

If a person has a reasonable chance of being cleared at trial, then they shouldn't take a plea agreement that involves the amount of jail time normally associated with felonies. Once again, this is an effective assistance of counsel issue. Additionally, jury trials shouldn't be a penalty for innocent people. Innocent people should be found not guilty at trial. Again, I bring up effective assistance of counsel but it can also be an issue of prosecutorial misconduct. And with regards to marginal cases, if the DA's case is so marginal, then the DA shouldn't be able to meet their burden of proof at trial. This is once more an effective assistance of counsel issue.

What seems to be your biggest problems with plea bargains are all issues that result when incompetent lawyers act as defense counsel. I'm not going to say that this isn't happening but there are always major efforts in place by the various bar associations to disbar incompetent lawyers and by justice groups to reverse the effects of incompetent lawyers.

As for the Innocence Project, they do fight tooth and nail for every conviction they get overturned. However, the Innocence Project as well as the state-based spin-offs of the Innocence Project work hard to help prevent defendants from requiring the need of the Innocence Project in the first place. The Innocence Network, which is made up of the Innocence Project and its spin-offs runs seminars, provides resources and educates defense counsel as well as judges and prosecution in how to prevent innocent people from going to jail. This is what I mentioned before when I talked about the Innocence Project teaching lawyers how to recognize false confessions and faulty evidence and how to keep those things from being admitted at trial.

[PAstrychef]

Innocent people should not be found not guilty at trial indeed.
Alas, our method of trial advocacy, wherein the most compelling story wins has led to the innocent being convicted. In Texas it has been found that having your attorney sleep through your trial is not sufficient grounds for appeal. Also in Texas being factually innocent has been found insufficient grounds for have a stay of execution granted.
One can hope, with a jury system, that the overall composition of the jury will help the "true" story be recognized. Some jurors will distrust the prosecution, some the defense. Some will understand the science of the evidence, some will understand the behavior of the accused.
It protects from cronyism between judges and lawyers (except in Chicago) and, fallible as it is, it does let the ultimate exercise of the law remain in the hands of the general population-By the People, Of the People and For the People. By requiring some level of civic participation of the populace it helps bind the populace into a citizenry.