Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Plea Bargaining

Rate this topic


HaloNoble6

Recommended Posts

Suppose a dear loved one of yours is brutally murdered but that during trial the murderer manages to get off with a much lighter sentence than death or life without parole by giving the government information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Is justice for your loved one served?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue of justice should not be confused with a just legal system. For example, a murderer might plead guilty to a lesser crime because there is scant evidence against him, or because he testifies as to who hired him to do the hit. That is not a just punishment for the murderer, but it may be a just action for the prosecutor. The justice of a legal system depends on the full context of the situation – including the fact that information is not perfect and that the resources of the courts are limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, a just legal system does not necessarily guarantee justice.

Let me then modify my question. What if there's enough evidence to convict the murderer, but the prosecutor, after learning that the murderer has information that can lead to the capture of OBL, decides to not pursue death or life without parole in exchange for this information? Two questions: is justice served for your dead loved one, and can this legal action be characterized as just?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the legal system cannot guarantee justice, the goal should be to maximize it within the constraints possible. This may mean less justice for some criminals (and their victims) in order to achieve a greater level of justice overall. This is proper if the consequence is achieving a safer society overall.

Furthermore, justice for the victim is only done if he is fully compensated for the harm. In the American system, this isn’t even a goal of the criminal system, and not possible in any system in cases of murder. At best, you can do justice to the criminal, but even this ability is very limited, since the proper punishment for a murder is death, but there are strict limitations on when it can be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of times in criminal cases, the state will take a pragmatic approach more than a just approach. If prosecutors feel there is a low probability of a conviction, sometimes criminals aren't even charged for crimes they commit (just ask John and Patsy Ramsey).

If you feel that justice is not served criminally, you can always pursue the matter in a civil trail, where the burden of proof is easier to establish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the purpose of a legal sentence to punish? This is rather an eye-for-an-eye approach that comes down to us from the Code of Hammurabi.

A human being that has reached the stage of willingness to murder another human being on little or no pretext is little more than a mad dog; you don't punish a mad dog, you remove it from contact with civilized human beings in as humane a manner as possible.

The question of whether justice is done by giving a criminal a lesser sentence also inherently assumes that the desire of the survivors is for vengeance, which is not a proper emotion of a rational human being.

"He who fights with monsters should be careful that he does not become a monster; when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks back through you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If prosecutors feel there is a low probability of a conviction, sometimes criminals aren't even charged for crimes they commit

This is proper. The state shouldn’t waste resources pursing a hopeless case at the expense of more viable ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question really is: Given that the state has the evidence to enforce equivalent forfeiture of value from the criminal, based on the value he took from the victim (which is the principle of justice), is it ever moral for a state to lessen this enforcement in exchange for information the criminal might provide in the capture of another criminal?

In other words, is it moral to lessen a criminal's punishment in one particular case (which essentially reduces the extent of forfeiture of value) in exchange for value brought about by the information he reveals about another case, i.e. should the justice system operate as a sort of business whose goal is to maximize a profit of justice at the end of the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question really is: [...] should the justice system operate as a sort of business whose goal is to maximize a profit of justice at the end of the day?

I'd say yes. Isn't a buisness the proper model for most everything? You want to maximize the value of your given area i.e. your profit. If trade is the proper means of interaction between people, than business is the proper means of organizing that trade. Even in areas such as justice, foreign policy, even medicine. For example, hospitals goal is to maximize recovery, and they may often have to make decisions between patients in similar conditions of who has the most chance of survival in who they will treat first and how. It has to be done business like, that's the only objective means of deciding. That's why people say things like "It's not personal-it's business" because the personal element has been pulled out to make the objective decision of what will create a profit of what ever value to the most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in answer to your original question:

Suppose a dear loved one of yours is brutally murdered but that during trial the murderer manages to get off with a much lighter sentence than death or life without parole by giving the government information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.  Is justice for your loved one served?

I'd say yes. Just like Capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone, so a business model for justice raises the level of justice for everyone, although it may mean that some individuals do not get what they want.

Rephrase it to say: Suppose Osama Bin Laden was left free in order to punish the murderer of your dear loved one. Two years later OBL coordinates the attack on the World Trade Center. Would you consider that the proper action of a justice system?

An objective justice system works in a trickle down way, where perhaps you do not get the justice of your one dear loved one, but five other dear loved ones never suffered that would have if the legal system did not operate the way it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

should the justice system operate as a sort of business whose goal is to maximize a profit of justice at the end of the day?

Although plea bargains are a efficiency-maximizing action, a monopoly legal system differs from a business in fundamental ways. It’s goal is not to make a return on profit, but to maximize convictions. If it operated like a business, it would only prosecute and defend individuals who could pay the costs of defense or prosecution. Incarceration wouldn’t be an option unless forced labor was profitable. Qua business, a legal system has perverse incentives that require strict oversight, which is why it’s not private in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose a dear loved one of yours is brutally murdered but that during trial the murderer manages to get off with a much lighter sentence than death or life without parole by giving the government information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.  Is justice for your loved one served?

Rather than taking away time as a reward for revealing the location of OBL, perhaps the criminal should be faced with an additional punishment for protecting OBL. If he doesn't inform the proper authorities on the whereabouts of a known terrorist, he is an accomplice, and should be punished as such. The problem is this might require two trials, which would be costly. I think OBL's arrest would be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this: Two people are running away from a sniper. One is OBL and the other is a petty criminal. Whom does he shoot? The answer is obvious.

Similarly, a prosecutor who finds himself in a situation where he can prosecute only one of two people has to choose rationally.

Ofcourse, the situation is not always so clear-cut. There will be often be some evidence against both and a prosecutor will try to "give" the lesser criminal only as much as he thinks he needs to... like a lesser sentence, rather than no prosecution at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason there is plea bargaining in the US legal system is that the judicial bureaucracy isn't large enough to handle all the criminals it has to deal with. There isn't time to try everyone, and there isn't space to keep everyone. People need to be given shorter sentences due to lack of space to house them.

The *real* problem is that there are too many things which are prosecuted as crimes. In particular a number of victimless crimes.

Legalizing drugs would be a substantial step to freeing up the judicial bureaucracy and prisons to deal adequately with people who commit genuine crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose a dear loved one of yours is brutally murdered but that during trial the murderer manages to get off with a much lighter sentence than death or life without parole by giving the government information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.  Is justice for your loved one served?

Did you know about this? It's surprisingly similar-I thought it might have inspired the question.

A federal judge has allowed accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to plead guilty to unspecified charges and he will do so Friday afternoon, the U.S. District Court said Wednesday.

It was not clear if Moussaoui would plead guilty Friday to all or just some of the charges against him.

Moussaoui was indicted on six charges related to the attacks: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, to commit aircraft piracy, to destroy aircraft, to use weapons of mass destruction, to murder U.S. employees and to destroy property.

Four counts carry the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason there is plea bargaining in the US legal system is that the judicial bureaucracy isn't large enough to handle all the criminals it has to deal with.  There isn't time to try everyone, and there isn't space to keep everyone.  People need to be given shorter sentences due to lack of space to house them.

The incentives are actually the opposite. The more efficient the legal system, the more plea bargains we can expect, since criminals are more likely to plead guilty when the outcome is more certain, and the prosecution always faces finite resources. The overall level of punishment is not affected because prosecutors simply add a premium for those who do not plead. The primary change in a more efficient legal system is a lower premium for those who do not plead guilty – an increase in justice.

This should tell you that plea bargaining is a beneficial cost-saving and risk-management strategy, not a negative. If plea bargaining were banned, it would either go on under the table, or criminals would get harsher sentences than they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the legal system cannot guarantee justice, the goal should be to maximize it within the constraints possible.  This may mean less justice for some criminals (and their victims) in order to achieve a greater level of justice overall.  This is proper if the consequence is achieving a safer society overall.

GC, I agree that there are good reasons to support plea bargaining, but I wonder if your justification for it above amounts to a form of utilitarianism. Doesn't "less justice for some criminals (and their victims) in order to achieve a greater level of justice overall," amount to suborning an individual's rights (justice) for the greater good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this: the trial happens first, including sentencing.

Neither the criminal nor his defence attorney are allowed to hear the verdict (or the sentence). The government can then decide, not gamble, on which outcome it would prefer, and if it chooses, it can make an offer of a lesser sentence if the criminal has something to offer.

Who ever said that the criminal had to be on an even playing field with respect to the bargaining process?

Then the decision is not about a presumed or hoped for level of justice, you can actually weigh it up. He will either get definitely a sentence of ten years - or - we can get information about OBL.

[Edit - added below]

That's more in respect to information bargaining, that straight plea bargaining. Because I don't think it's moral to allow someone to change their plea after they have made it.

Also, any deal that is subsequent to the trial and sentencing may need to be ratified by the jury or something. It's a new thought, so many details are unconsidered.

Edited by smathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The incentives are actually the opposite.  The more efficient the legal system, the more plea bargains we can expect, since criminals are more likely to plead guilty when the outcome is more certain, and the prosecution always faces finite resources.  The overall level of punishment is not affected because prosecutors simply add a premium for those who do not plead.  The primary change in a more efficient legal system is a lower premium for those who do not plead guilty – an increase in justice.

This should tell you that plea bargaining is a beneficial cost-saving and risk-management strategy, not a negative.  If plea bargaining were banned, it would either go on under the table, or criminals would get harsher sentences than they deserve.

Criminal justice should not be concerned with "efficiency". It should be concerned with due process , getting at the truth, preserving people's rights, and appropriate sentences.

A person has the right to a trial to evaluate the evidence against them and arrive at an appropriate punishment. To put a person in a position where they will be penalized for demanding that the state prove its case (which again is their right) is morally reprehensible. The state should always be prepared to present its evidence in a public forum and place it on public record. In fact I would be in favor of not even allowing defendents to plea "guilty", and force the state to always conduct a trial (keep in mind here that a "not guilty" plea in court is not an assertion of innocence. "Not guilty" should rather be said as "prove it", it is a challenge to the state to prove its case).

Plea bargaining can be abused as a way of the state dealing with the fact that it has a weak case and scaring the person into accepting a lower sentence rather than risk a higher one.

I still say the only acceptable reasoning behind plea bargaining is the one I gave earlier. It is still morally wrong and should be dealt with by eliminating crimes from law until the case load on the system is within bounds the system can deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plea bargaining can be abused ...
This is true and it is a legitimate concern. However, in itself, it does not imply that plea bargaining is wrong. It implies that some type of "check and balance" is required to protect against such abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...