| ▲ | Aurornis 13 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%. This is a misunderstood statistic. Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success. They don't operate like two private parties suing each other to force the court to decide something. If the evidence is there or the charges aren't fully formed, they don't waste resources on it. This leads to a contradictory set of complaints that the legal system lets too many people go or doesn't have enough teeth. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
True, although many prosecutors do also try to put their thumb on the scale when possible. For comparison, Japan has a 99.9% conviction rate, but defers prosecution in 60% of cases. And police aren’t arresting or even attempting to enforce the law for every crime. Citizens complain that petty crime laws aren’t being enforced enough, leading to a rise in things like graffiti, litter, and traffic violations (the “bosozoku” motorcycle gangs are having a resurgence). But if you do face prosecution, there is enormous pressure to sign a confession and avoid trial, as a conviction at trial may be punished more harshly. Very similar in some respects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | coldtea 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success. Given the incarceration rates compared to average western standards, that's a moot point. Even if they selectively pursue, they do pursue a hell of a lot, and they do get a hell of a lot of convictions - relatively. Factor in the severity of the convictions, also much worse compared to average western standards even for the same offenses, and it's an ever worse picture. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success. The problem with this theory is that it ignores the incentives on the other side in a criminal case. When you get charged with something, the prosecutor offers you a deal and that deal is almost invariably a significantly lower penalty than what happens if you go to court and get convicted. The plea deal is a lesser charge, if you demand a trial then they throw the book at you, stack charges and ask for more severe penalties for each one. With the result that if someone actually did it, demanding a trial instead of pleading guilty for a lesser sentence has a large negative expected value. Which in turn implies that it doesn't make sense to do unless you think there is a high probability you can win, for example because you know you didn't do it. The coercive force is so large that it can cause innocent people to plead guilty, since even a 10% chance of losing can screw up your whole life when it means a 10x higher penalty. And yet > 90% of the people who thought their chances of being acquitted were high enough to be worth taking a much large sentence on conviction, still get convicted. Which seems suspicious. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't think it's so much a "misunderstood" statistic as much as a number that people (like the commenter you are replying to) deliberately trot out to use as evidence for their position because they are depending on most people being statistically illiterate. To be clear, I totally agree with your points, I just think this is more of a case of "lying with statistics" than being a misunderstanding. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | imtringued 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think you forgot something even more basic. Federal prosecutors handle federal crimes and the vast majority of those require extensive investigations to gather evidence before you can even initiate a court case. The most classic case of federal offense is tax fraud. You can't record tax fraud on a camera or believe the witnesses, you actually need to look at the balance sheet and contracts of the company and make sure there is actually a crime to prosecute. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | NoMoreNicksLeft 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They never pursue court trials, because it's too much work. But they'll pursue plea deals, because there's this gigantic pipeline and everyone in it (including public defenders) is on the same team: Team Make Him Plead. Because of this, no true justice is possible. Trials don't just try the defendants, it forces the prosecutor to prove that there really was a case and that they weren't just trying to bully someone who felt it was hopeless and would rather get out of pre-trial jail early. It forces the cops to actually make a fucking case, rather than rely on horseshit to lock someone away that can't bond out. And no reform is possible. If you explain any of this to someone who actually understands it, they panic and say "but the prosecutors wouldn't even be able to bring 1/50th of those cases to trial, the system would overload" as if that were a bad thing that they couldn't. In the same way that you're not caught in a traffic jam but rather you are traffic, you're not caught up in these problems... your apathy, your ignorance, your rejection of boat-rocking, in short you are the problem. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||