> It’s quite a stretch to jump straight to innocent people being jailed because they’re using an LLM to summarise audio.
98% of cases end in plea bargains. Especially for lower level offences. These cases are decided in an assembly line fashion based on summaries and reports. It will be a blue moon when someone at the DA's office will sit down and listen through the audio.
The DA will use the summary and a summary of the case to pressure someone poor and not that well educated to take a plea deal. Their public defender will do the same.
And the innocent person will often be so frightened out of their mind that they will say yes.
It happens every day.
> Pleas can allow police and government misconduct to go unchecked, because mistakes and misbehavior often only emerge after defense attorneys gain access to witness interviews and other materials, with which they can test the strength of a government case before trial.
> Eyster believed that Sweatt was innocent of the drug charges against her. “This is a hardworking woman who lived in a heavily policed community for 10 years,” she told me. “If she were a drug dealer, she would have already been evicted. She doesn’t have a history of drug use.” But the idea of taking this case to trial was a nonstarter. The best path forward, Eyster decided, was to humanize Sweatt to the prosecutor—hence those time sheets—and then try to negotiate a plea bargain. In exchange for a guilty plea, the prosecutor might not recommend a prison sentence.
> The strategy worked. The prosecutor reduced the charge from a felony to a Class A misdemeanor and offered Sweatt a six-month suspended sentence (meaning she wouldn’t have to serve any of it) with no probation. Her paraphernalia charge was dismissed, and her conviction would result in a fine and fees that totaled $1,396.15.