Imagine yourself talking to those prosecutors and being threatened with 50 years, and then given that 3 months deal. What would you do? Would you think "yeah, I'm not really going to get 50 years" - or would you be scared as hell about spending the rest of your life in prison?
So yeah, I think such threats absolutely do matter, and the system should be changed so this doesn't happen anymore. I've also recently heard that something like 98 percent of people charged take the plea deal (I think it was from some documentary). That's INSANE. That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.
Everyone should be getting a fair trial, regardless. I mean, even if the guy is guilty - wouldn't you rather have him in a fair trial to make sure he gets what he deserves, rather than have the prosecutors offer him a much smaller prison time?
If convicted you can certainly get 50 years because the of minimum sentencing rules. This is where you get juries saying after the trial "I had no idea he would be sentenced to 50 years - I thought he would only get a couple of months".
As a defendant your lawyer can't tell the jury the sentence you face if convicted - apparently if the jury knows you face a minimum of 50 years for a minor crime they might not be so keen to convict you!
My feeling is serving on a jury it is a bit like voting. I know it is unlikely that I am doing any good, but it is my duty to do my best in both circumstances.
How about if someone takes a plea, that there still has to be a trial with corroborating evidence besides the person taking that plea that shows their guilt. The defendant can assist the prosecution, but cannot testify against themselves since they would no longer be a credible witness.
Myself, I've never been asked yet, but if I was, I think I'd do it for most cases as someone has to be there who understands the powers a jury actually has, but get out if it was something really bad or one that's likely to last for months and months.
Non-comprehensive, but gives an indication of how fucked jury instructions are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_instructions
I wish that some prosecutor would "go rogue" and start applying all these tactics on nice middle class people. The outcry after a couple of weeks would be so great that something might be done about changing things.
I know :(
In my heart I always hope there are people out there that will put doing the right thing ahead of their material comfort and status. Right or wrong Snowden did show there are some people who do.
What if there is a slight -- repeat slight -- spectrum? Personally, I would not mind being theoretically "conditionally detained/penalized/sentenced" provided:
1. The penalty is low -- police surveillance, fine that will be returned if exonerated
2. You're compensated if exonerated
3. These penalties carry no more stigma than jury duty
A scheme like this might allow the criminal justice system to move a bit faster. Or does this sound completely outrageous?
This means that there's a great deal of prosecution of petty and minor crimes, including a huge number of convictions for drug offenses and for what amounts to "being poor". I'll add child support payments to this list: if the state sees a benefit in raising a child, why make that a burden on one specific individual, to the point of incarceration, particularly where circumstances may be less than clear (family law is like that). It's another area where decriminalization could very well have better results for all involved: less acrimonious court cases, better welfare for the child, and a lack of oppression on the alleged father.
Meantime: large and complex cases against those with means, whether drug kingpins, organized crime lords, or Wall Street bankers and traders (but I repeat myself) go under-prosecuted. The cases are more complex, yes, but the social harm presented also, IMO, greatly outweighs that of most petty crime.
Add in the psychological aspects of much crime, violent, white-collar, or otherwise, and there's a lot found wanting in the present US criminal and penal system.
Many moons ago one of the more interesting college courses I took was, of all things, a breadth-requirement literature class covering concepts of penal law. The reading included Michel Foucault[1], his book I, Pierre Riviere, Having Slaughtered my Mother, my Sister and my Brother[3], and Panopticon by Jeremy Bentham[4]. It's proven to be one of the more serendipitously fascinating and relevant courses in my entire college career.
________________________________
Notes:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_foucault I don't recall the specific work, an his bibliography is sufficiently extensive that it has its own wikipedia page[2].
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault_bibliography
3. http://www.amazon.com/Pierre-Riviere-having-slaughtered-brot... Reading this casually in a cafe or other public setting can itself be an interesting anthropological study.
4. http://www.amazon.com/The-Panopticon-Writings-Radical-Thinke...