> I think it's something about remorse. Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done. Admitting what you did and that you did it shows you at least know it's wrong and that you deserve some punishment.
Yeah, but that hinges entirely under the assumption that the accused is guilty.
> Maintaining innocence when you know you're guilty shows a lack of remorse about what you've done.
Yet pleading guilty only because you get a payoff for it doesn't really say anything about your remorse either.
Not attacking you or your position (whatever that may be) - I know you're just explaining the reason we have this system, but it's also worth pointing out that said rationale isn't uncontested.
>If you accept a trial's outcome that the accused is guilty, it follows logically that they deserve to be punished more for denying it (or at least, more than they would be punished if they confessed.)
>Studies have shown innocent people regularly react to assertions of criminality.
Yeah, if I were accused of a big crime I would look at it like this: if my faith in the justice system is 99%, and if I'm facing 50 years in jail, then given my innocence I'm facing an expected value of 6 months in jail. You can bet I'd be sweating!
> So is there any point at which you would say it matters whether an accusation is true or not? Is it only if there’s a criminal investigation?
It always matters whether an accusation is true. Penalizing accusers doesn’t produce fewer false accusations. It discourages true accusations.
> You're looking at this from the perspective of the person making the accusation, where you can know with certainty that is true. Someone on the outside doesn't have that ability.
You’ve completely misunderstood my perspective. I’m looking at it from the perspective of the person afraid to make an accusation.
> When you're innocent you think that your innocence means something. It doesn't. Discount it and move on. ... If you're guilty ... no idea how to help you.
Not sure how to read that. Is this consistent?
I'm not trying to bait or anything. Judicial institutions aren't about some objective truth somewhere out in the universe. Best case scenario is that their processes provide stability. (The nice, good governance kind of stability, therefore creating legitimacy, being predictable etc.)
I can therefore fully understand the first part. No idea why they chose to return to the question of guilt again later in their comment.
It wouldn't change a thing in the usefulness of their advice.
> Many people have lost innocent-until-proven-guilty in their minds.
It's worse. Sometimes I feel like "innocent-until-proven-guilty" is considered a flaw in the system that should be eradicated to make it easier to catch/punish criminals.
> Knowing human nature, this is understandable - there's a tendency to think that once a "fight" has been won, it should stay won. But it's also disturbing: does this tendency cause people to actively want to imprison innocent people?
It's not that they want to imprison innocents; it's a prosecutor's job to get the defendant convicted no matter what, whether or not they personally believe the defendant is guilty. They are simply acting as their job calls for (the conflicting prosecution and defense attorneys in theory bringing about the truth), because until now you could never be 100% sure. '100% sure' and 'our legal system' do not go well together.
P.S. Don't invoke the argument over the ethically wrong claiming 'oh I was just doing my job'- this is different; we WANT the prosecutor to behave like that, even if he feels or even knows the defendant is innocent. It's what (in theory anyway) makes the system work.
> So are you saying that victims must win a court case to have their story believed but perpetrators should be taken at their word?
Not the person to whom you're replying, but the presumption of innocence means this exactly. If you are accused of a crime, you are presumed innocent until it can be proven you're not.
> In the USA, in 2017, people who knows they're guilty plead not guilty because they have reason to believe that they'll be able to get away with something.
I don't have a problem with this. Allowing a defendant to plead not guilty puts the onus on the system to make its case. The purpose of the justice system is not only to determine innocence and guilt, it's also to show that there is a fair and transparent process to get to that result. The procedure is often as important as the substance.
> people who know they're not guilty frequently plead guilty
Not sure how often this occurs, but this is definitely bad.
> Unfortunately, prosecutors are not trying to find out the truth, they're simply trying to put whoever is in front of them in prison. It doesn't matter if the suspect is guilty. If the guy goes to prison, they win.
Yes, exactly. I still can't wrap my mind around this.
> Equally frustrating -- to see the guilty just walk off and laugh as it is to see the redeemed struggle having conceded their mistakes.
That of course depends on your value system. There are many that consider sending an innocent person to jail far worse than letting a guilty person walk free, and I’m sure you can apply a similar worldview here as well.
> How do we know that it's not just because he thought he was most likely to be convicted and didn't want to roll the dice?
It doesn't really matter. We want to incentivise guilty people pleading guilty mainly to lighten the load on the justice system. Being lenient to sincerely repenting people is a desirable side effect that nevertheless should not be pursued too hard.
> In the USA, in 2017, people who knows they're guilty plead not guilty because they have reason to believe that they'll be able to get away with something.
Yes some people do this, but the vast, vast majority of cases never go to trial. Innocent people plead guilty in the us all the time.
> Sentencing has always had unprovable stuff considered. Your friends and family will come in to tell what a wonderful person you are, none of it verifiable and often entirely bullshit.
True, but I see a bigger problem with sentencing being based on conduct that the defendant was acquitted of. The concept is supposed to be that if you were acquitted, you didn't commit the crime.
Yeah, but that hinges entirely under the assumption that the accused is guilty.
What if they're legitimately not?
reply