re: The Auburn 4- Why did Goodwin get 15 years?

Take your own advice or explain how in the hell you think these innocent people do not have a choice to go to trial or take the deal?

It's pretty simple. I have 2 choices.

Option 1-Don't take the deal. Go to trial. I can either get no punishment or I can get 20 years.

Option 2- Take the deal. Plead guilty. Get 10 years.

Without plea bargains, I can only take option 1. So how is not having a second option beneficial to me?

Also How in the hell is getting 10 years not better than getting 20 years?

quote:

---

Is he really arguing that plea bargains are forced onto defendants?

---

Somehow, yes. Yes he is.

If I don't want to risk the max sentence then a plea deal would be safer because I know I won't get the max. Which even in a system that is supposedly stacked against me, I would benefit from having the choice would I not?

The situation you just outlined, it is still better for me to have a second option than having only one so I don't see what point you think you just made.

Read this link:
The court appointed lawyer( ahem, prison driver) gave a 30 second opening statement and he also forgot his defendants name.
LINK

Great justice system we have, beaver. I bet you are one of those guys that think death penaltys should be allowed just so the plea deals can be effective?

quote:

---

You're still not getting the fricking point that even though the plea bargain is taking years off of a sentence, the defendant is already at a disadvantage because he has to reluctantly take a plea deal. If you were innocent with no money for a lawyer, would you be so eager to take a plea deal for ten years even though you did nothing to deserve 10 years

---

No I wouldn't be eager to take it. No ones forcing me to take it. I can go to trial if I want. Or not. That's the fricking point.

How is having the option of taking a plea deal worse for me? That's what I've been asking for what seems like hours now.

quote:

---

If I don't want to risk the max sentence then a plea deal would be safer because I know I won't get the max. Which even in a system that is supposedly stacked against me, I would benefit from having the choice would I not?

---

I think he's arguing that the allocation of public defenders is such a crapshoot t that you are much more encouraged to take a deal than risk trial with a shoddy defense attorney even if you're not guilty. The prevalence of plea deals has led to our criminal justice system trying to stack the deck to coerce people into take plea deals whether they're guilty or not.

Again, not MY view of the current system. Just think that's what jangalang is arguing. I could be very wrong.

Again, if you would read, I made zero comments about the system as a whole. Yet, when I made the argument that plea bargains are good for the defendant and do not infringe on your right to a fair trial, you disagreed.

I get that but the factors he thinks stacks the deck against the defendant would not change if we got rid of plea deals.

I would have the same amount of risk going to trial in either situation. With plea deals, at least I have another option

quote:

---

And if you really think that going to trial is an option for the poor folks, you're naieve at best and a fricking idiot at worst.

---

And you're a condescending frick who seems incapable of civil discourse. There was a miscommunication about the scope of your original comment. Then you got hostile. After it was pointed out that the conversation was more pointed than your broad scope, you failed to accept that and made personal attacks.