The Glade 4.0

It's my understanding that part of the plea bargain agreement is that you are pleading guilty to a lesser offense. In this case, for instance, the defendant is guilty of misdemeanor assault. He is not guilty of rape.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Well yeah. and if he did something that qualifies as misdemeanor assault (whatever that entails), then by all means. However if he was never anywhere near that girl and as pure as the driven snow then he shouldn't plea IMO.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I know in my heart if hearts that even if I was completely innocent of all charges brought against me as well as any plea bargain charges (leaving out the fact that misdemeanor assault in Texas can be charged for as little as: "Intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."), if the prosecutor went so far as to bring it before two Grand Juries and my choice was to either take the chance of being convicted of sexual assault, which entails having a felony follow you forever, serving up to 20 years in prison and registering as a sex offender for the rest of your life, as well as losing his scholarship - or pleading to misdemeanor assault, serving no time and doing 150 hours of community service, I know I'd take the plea and get on with my life, and in a few years to a decade get the conviction expunged. They found a Grand Jury that agreed that charges should be brought, what says they couldn't find a jury that would convict? It's not a gamble I'd take. Others might feel they're more brave or whatever, but I don't know that I need to chance going to pound-me-up-the-ass prison for the best years of my life to prove my righteous convictions when the alternative is provided.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Here is one of the greatest problems with our legal system. We can see in this thread evidence that you are assumed guilty until proven innocent. It's the, "Why would you plead the 5th unless you are guilty?" mentality. What I find interesting is that double jeopardy protections do not apply to indictment. A Grand Jury already determined that there was insufficient evidence to accuse him of a crime, but all that means is that the prosecution gets to keep trying.

So yeah, he's going to plea bargain. It's not a matter of personal integrity. The writing is on the wall. Guilt or innocence did not matter. This was not about justice. The prosecution didn't care whether he was guilty. They were going to have him convicted regardless, and the courts were going to let them.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

We'sa gonna have us a lynchin! Oh wait, he's not guilty? Aww, but we got the rope all ready and ****!

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I totally missed that in this thread. The only thing I'm seeing is people assuming they are guilty for the crimes they admit they are guilty of.

Vindi: I can totally see that. But one of the "penalties" of the pleading guilty to a crime is that people assume you are telling the truth. Again, it doesn't make sense for me to think you are not guilty if you're telling me you are.

I totally agree, Arathain. It's the only logical way to think. I was addressing the idea that people couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't plead guilty to anything they're not guilty of doing.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yes, our system is kind of messed up that way as I alluded to earlier with the "prosecutor win" statement.

"I'm innocent, and you have no evidence."
"Well, the jury may agree with you, but if they agree with me, you'll spend 20 years in prison. Unless you plead guilty, then you can spend the weekend in jail, pay a $50 fine, and be free."

WTF...

I'd feel better about a Jury of my Peers if it was actually of my peers and not 12 people too stupid to get out of serving on a jury.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That is exactly why I pled no contest to a dog-at-large charge. The other crucial piece you are missing though is legal fees. Pay $750-500 bucks to a lawyer to fight a $200 ticket?

_________________

Cities and municipalities in Washington (state) have been implementing traffic cameras for several years now, with the stated goal to increase revenue.

They work hard at setting the fine at an amount that people are willing to pay to get out of the trouble of going to court to fight them.

If they start getting a bunch of people showing up to contest the charges, the fines mysteriously drop by $20 or so.

Most people just pay the fine, and by doing so are admitting to the guilt regardless of the facts of the case, just because it's not worth the time and energy to contest them.

I'm guessing you've never been to traffic court... usually they will take off a huge chunk of it just for showing up. Before you go to real court.

I suggest that speed cameras and traffic light cameras are fairly accurate. I haven't heard of any folks that have been busted and are not actually guilty, though I'm sure there's some rare cases. Most probably pay the fine because they know they are guilty, and don't want to go through the trouble and expense of trying to convince a judge they are not.

I've only ever fought one ticket. Other times I was guilty.