Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
He gave a logical reason that I don't remember. Perhaps it was something like this:
Assume 90% of those arrested are guilty. But also assume that the punishment one receives if convicted at trial is far in excess of what is just for that specific crime. If the plea bargain results in a much lower sentence, then, on average, the technique is moral.
Yes there's a 'defense' that the system is so thoroughly rotten that without the abuse of plea bargaining it would be even worse. Let's assume that's true but:
a) it means more than plea bargaining needs to change (which is obvious anyway)
and
b) Plea bargaining is itself supporting a system with far more criminalisation than is just. A far better start for your test than 90% are guilty, would be that 90% of those who plead would have been found guilty of the crime in a viable system without plea bargaining.