Yes, well, if it's one thing that we've learned it's that the American legal system is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes. It takes the action of the legislative, executive, or higher judicial bodies to actually change things.
Justice being the best your money can buy - it's a sad reality. They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?
Maybe we need more lawyerless law suits, like those from Small Claims Court, to even the playing field.
If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. Mandatory minimums are one of those thought free zones of US, together with the war on drugs, war on terror and "won't anyone think of the children?". I believe we need more common sense and ethic into our justice and less automatic rubber stamping of convictions.
It is the reverse. If you have too many cases to deal with because of absurd legislation that criminalizes a large portion of your population then you are already DDOS'ing your legal system. The 'lets try to route all requests straight to jail' option is not a solution for this problem.
The DDOS is cause, not effect, and it is the laws that cause the DDOS, not the fact that people have (in theory apparently) a right to a fair trial.
Then you don't understand what a plea bargain is. Plea bargains are used only in criminal cases. You may have heard that 90% of lawsuits are settled before they go to court but that has nothing to do with what a plea bargain is.
>Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it.
No, trumping up accusations is grandstanding. It is neither necessary nor wise if you have a plea bargain system in place. Yes, you can tell the defendant what the possible maximum sentence is, but that doesn't mean you have to grandstand and press conference the result for the rest of the world's consumption.
>They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?
Talk to Kevin Mitnick and Bernie S about this...
>If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better.
This I agree with. The entire purpose of having a judge involved in sentencing was to make sure that each case was judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums castrate the judicial system and give too much control to a legislature that is largely bought and paid for by the military/prison/school/election/industrial complex.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...