Today is #WrongfulConvictionDay and so I want to highlight the many ways that plea bargaining contributes to wrongful convictions in this country. @InnocenceNtwrk
@InnocenceNtwrk First, it is important to keep in mind that the whole idea behind plea bargaining is that it makes the criminal justice system more efficient—not more accurate, but quicker at convicting people with minimum time and expense. #WrongfulConvictionDay
@InnocenceNtwrk That means, instead of having a jury try to sort out the innocent from the guilty, claims of innocence just become part of a negotiation. A person who says she’s innocent may be able to get a better deal from prosecutors (or she might not.)
@InnocenceNtwrk You might think that an innocent person should just refuse to plead guilty—but that brings us to the second reason that plea bargains lead to wrongful convictions--going to trial is too risky for defendants because we punish people for invoking their right to a jury trial.
@InnocenceNtwrk When a person is convicted after a trial, judges will impose a longer sentence than on those who plead guilty.
Sometimes the judge has to do this because the prosecutor used their charging power to punish the defendant.
But sometimes judges do it of their own accord.
@InnocenceNtwrk The result is that people who invoke their trial serve much, much longer sentences.
A recent @NACDL report found that people spend on average 3x longer in prison if they go to trial than if they plead guilty. nacdl.org/Document/Trial…
@InnocenceNtwrk@NACDL To be sure, trials aren’t perfect. Innocent people get convicted at trials too.
But plea bargaining explicitly sacrifices innocence and justice in favor of efficiency.
In some sense, all of the convictions we obtain from such a system are wrongful. #WrongfulConvictionDay
@InnocenceNtwrk@NACDL So this #WrongfulConvictionDay I hope you will take a minute to recognize how, instead of trying to fix our system of trials to better get at the truth, we’ve adopted a new system of pressure and pleas.
The new system is worse. And it should have no place in a "justice" system.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Fascinating story. What's especially interesting to me is that the policy involves whether to file gun charges in federal court, rather than DC Superior Court---and the decision is entirely in the prosecutors' hands because the US Atty handles both.
If this were a story about anywhere else in the country, the decision to file in federal, rather than state court, would also change your prosecutor. The US Atty's office would handle a federal case, while the local prosecutor would handle a state case.
The different prosecutor would matter because the US Attorney is appointed by the President. But the state prosecutor is usually elected by the community in the county or district, so there's local control.
In this story, you see a reference to local control issues:
Seriously, I find it astounding how many people repeatedly trumpet the idea that it is somehow *bad* to explain why there are substantive problems with an argument or a policy that you don't like.
A few months ago, one guy was incensed that I took the time to explain why there were substantive legal problems with an NRO column rather than just calling the person who wrote it a racist who operates in bad faith.
There is a lot to criticize about the Texas anti-abortion law, but trying to craft laws that subvert judicial review strikes me as something that people who call themselves "conservative" should not support.
Judicial review is a key component of our constitutional system.
As my friends on the right often remind me, ours is not a pure democracy. There are many pieces of the government that are specifically designed to make sure that majority opinion does not carry the day.
That is their response to complaints about the Senate and the filibuster.
Judicial review is one feature of our constitutional system that can (and does) frustrate majority rule. Congress and states can't pass blatantly unconstitutional laws even if a majority of Americans support those laws.
People are more comfortable interfering in the reproductive lives of single women. I imagine that’s why early contraception cases featured married couples
Imagine telling a married woman that she should simply stop having sex with her husband if she doesn’t want (more) children
And in case you were wondering whether married women get abortions, the answer is yes. The rates are much lower than for single women, but still significant. statista.com/statistics/185…
And, to be clear, the fact that it seems more inappropriate to tell married women to stop having sex than it does to say the same thing to unmarried women does not reflect well on our social norms surrounding gender, sexual activity, or marriage.
I have seen a lot of people talking about how the Biden vaccine order will backfire, resulting in fewer people getting vaccinated. Specifically, they claim it will turn those who are hesitant into staunch opponents. Let's talk about why these claims don't make a lot of sense....
Assuming people make decisions based on costs and benefits, requiring either vaccines or regular testing for many jobs will increase the costs associated with remaining unvaccinated. So if you believe people are rational actors, then this will lead to more vaccinations.
Of course, most people often act irrationally. So it’s understandable to think that not everyone will make the simple cost benefit analysis and get a vaccine.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that requiring something will make it more objectionable.
In modern America, federal courts don’t have the authority to create new federal crimes.
But the history is overwhelming that they possessed the power to create new crimes at the Founding.
Why does that matter for the debate over Bivens? Well…..
I have not done the historical work to know what authority federal judges possessed over civil causes of action. So I don’t know what the original understanding of federal court power would have been on this issue.
But twice in the past five years, I did the historical work to examine two oft-repeated claims about narrow federal court authority in criminal cases. And both of those claims were just wrong.
Federal (and state) courts possessed enormous power to shape the criminal law.