Why does our justice system seem to be based on plea deals and politicized processes?
How is it right that when a group of people are equally involved in a crime, the government will pay one in the form of cash or less prison time to testify against another. First of all, that lets the one who squealled get off easier when they had just as much to do with the crime as the other suspects, Second, how is the "squealler" to be taken as a credible person when it is obvious the reason they are testyifying is because they want the money or less prison time themselves (of course they will say whatever the prosecuter wants; and perjury is not an issue because the people whose job it is to prosecute perjury cases are the same people who encouraged them to tesifty in the first place), Third, the motivation behind getting a conviction for the prosecutor is a PR move so they can win their next election even though they are letting some of the criminals go and may be helping convict the wrong person. The jury is also hamstrung by the judge's rigid guidlines. Is this right
Answers:
Many times, the best witnesses in a case are the accomplices. That is why the government offers plea agreements with stipulations to a lesser sentence to many criminal defendants.
Paying cash is used for the witness protection plan, to help defray the costs of a defendant in a big case with their relocation expenses; it is not a cash cow.
As for credibility of the "squealer," the prosecution does not specifically state to the witness how much extra mitigation of sentence will be recommended to the judge at sentencing, until after the witness' testimony against the co-defendants. That way, upon cross-examination by the defense attorney, the witness can state he is unsure if he will receive any more sentence consideration than what is in his plea agreement.
AUSA's, DA's, et al love to put notches on their belts, despite letting some people who may be more culpable plead out. That is why they will prosecute a case against a lesser defendant, if enough rats are willing to plead out and testify.
Although it appears that the jury is hamstrung by the judge's guidelines, most jurers don't quite understand them or ignore them, and vote accordingly.
it would be hrd to prove most crimes without any witnesses so they use surcimstantial evidense to aquire an eye witness
price of justise
Your premise that the reason for making deals is PR, to garner votes, is incorrect. The DA of my county, for instance, handles many thousands of cases per year. Most are resolved by plea bargain for the simple reason that the DA and the Court both have limited budgets and limited manpower. At best, a single prosecutor can take about 10 felonies to trial each year. That is 10 of a thousand or more cases. When they have to offer concessions to one defendant to testify against others, they do so with reluctance because, as you noted, the witness has low credibility. If there is no corroboration of the snitch, then acquittal is likely. Juries are always informed of any deal given to a witness.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers:
Do they pay me all my sick leave days if I resign working for the us government?
What are the ups/downs of emancipation?
Is it illegal in California to wear the shoulder strap of the seatbelt behind your back?
Right on red?
What U.S. crimes still have death penalty besides murder?
How can I keep my home after divorce?
Does lunch time get paid and do I need boss authorization to work OT?
Do you think that prison inmates should get punished or charged when they do a crime within the prison?
Explain how to properly interview an adult and a child who has been a victim of a sex crime.?
Answers:
Many times, the best witnesses in a case are the accomplices. That is why the government offers plea agreements with stipulations to a lesser sentence to many criminal defendants.
Paying cash is used for the witness protection plan, to help defray the costs of a defendant in a big case with their relocation expenses; it is not a cash cow.
As for credibility of the "squealer," the prosecution does not specifically state to the witness how much extra mitigation of sentence will be recommended to the judge at sentencing, until after the witness' testimony against the co-defendants. That way, upon cross-examination by the defense attorney, the witness can state he is unsure if he will receive any more sentence consideration than what is in his plea agreement.
AUSA's, DA's, et al love to put notches on their belts, despite letting some people who may be more culpable plead out. That is why they will prosecute a case against a lesser defendant, if enough rats are willing to plead out and testify.
Although it appears that the jury is hamstrung by the judge's guidelines, most jurers don't quite understand them or ignore them, and vote accordingly.
it would be hrd to prove most crimes without any witnesses so they use surcimstantial evidense to aquire an eye witness
price of justise
Your premise that the reason for making deals is PR, to garner votes, is incorrect. The DA of my county, for instance, handles many thousands of cases per year. Most are resolved by plea bargain for the simple reason that the DA and the Court both have limited budgets and limited manpower. At best, a single prosecutor can take about 10 felonies to trial each year. That is 10 of a thousand or more cases. When they have to offer concessions to one defendant to testify against others, they do so with reluctance because, as you noted, the witness has low credibility. If there is no corroboration of the snitch, then acquittal is likely. Juries are always informed of any deal given to a witness.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: