It boggles the mind that it's even possible to manufacture such a charge. In most European countries you would get the highest sentence for the biggest crime, which although wouldn't be "accurate" either, it's a whole lot closer to what the punishment should be than stacking the sentences up.
And please spare me the "but he would never get this sentence anyway!" argument. If you were in his position and the government would tell you you're risking 80 years in prison unless you fully cooperated with it, you'd shit your pants, too, and you'd probably give up any rights you have just to not risk getting anywhere close to that sentence, or you would even settle and plead guilty to avoid that.
The fact is that "pleading not guilty" is statistically the "biggest" crime you can commit in much of the US (meaning the one you are likely to be punished for most severely). Which of course makes a mockery of most of the protections of the law.
"In some jurisdictions, this gap has widened so much it has become coercive and is used to punish defendants for exercising their right to trial, some legal experts say."
It boggles the mind that it's even possible to manufacture such a charge.
Well, y'see, you were accused of a crime. If you don't admit you are guilty and save us the trouble of due process, well, you'll be punished more severely than if you bent over nice and quick for good ol' Uncle Sam.
Its basically a way for prosecutors to pressure people into plea bargains. It helps them maintain their 90%+ conviction rates.
1. The issues are orthogonal. You can simply raise the minimum sentence attached to rape, whether you stack sentences or not.
2. The punishment is almost entirely irrelevant. What matters is the recidivism rate. This may just be a difference in morals. I believe the justice system exists to protect society and reintegrate criminals into it, or keep them out if they are not salvageable. I do not believe revenge has a place in the justice system. An eye for an eye makes everyone go blind.
Sweden is just one example. In Germany you get a criminal sentence and potentially preventive detention, which means you get to stay in prison until you no longer pose any danger to society. Given that nobody wants to be responsible for releasing such a prisoner only to have him commit a crime later on, people tend to stay quite a while in preventive detention.
Makes much more sense than labelling people as sex offenders in my opinion.
No we are talking about actual rape reap, including child molestation, as well as early release for all sentences (1/3rd) unless you have behaved very very badly.
Norway has a slightly better sentencing system, the sentences are also quite short but not as comically short as in Sweden where they are too short for any effective programs.
Here's a famous case of a man convicted of molesting 100's of children in both Sweden and Norway who got 9 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Andersen_(child_molester) He was convicted on over 60 counts, and it's hardly a unicorn case.
2/3rds, and obviously not including life sentences (although they can of course be commuted to time limited ones, in which case the general rule applies).
IIRC the federal government really doesn't offer plea bargains, right? And federal sentencing is pretty rigid, so he probably would have served ~80 years.
That's correct the USSG pretty much makes plea agreements non-viable because it doesn't allow the prosecutor to offer any substantial leniency on sentencing, mandatory minimums on pretty much every federal crime also make plea agreements pointless.
On the local level plea agreements are used to make prosecuting people cheaper, if you don't agree to it they'll pretty much fuck you up intentionally just to prove a point which is probably even worse than not having the ability to offer them in the first place.
That's correct the USSG pretty much makes plea agreements non-viable because it doesn't allow the prosecutor to offer any substantial leniency on sentencing, mandatory minimums on pretty much every federal crime also make plea agreements pointless.
You are very wrong.
First of all, the majority of federal crimes do not have mandatory minimums. http://famm.org/Repository/Files/Chart%20All%20Fed%20MMs%202... is an exhaustive list of federal crimes with mandatory minimums. It's only a fraction of the total number of federal crimes.
More importantly, the effect of the Sentencing Guidelines was that it removed sentencing discretion from judges and gave it to prosecutors. That's because the sentencing range given by the guidelines is influenced by what charges the prosecutor brings, and the details of those charges such as quantity of drugs or amount of property damage. This gives the prosecutor enormous influence over the sentence.[1] (Edited to add: In the same way the prosecutor can influence whether a statutory minimum is triggered.)
Consequentially, the plea bargain rate in federal cases is about 97% whereas in states it is somewhat less.
[1] Technically, since U.S. v. Booker in 2005, the sentencing guidelines are only "advisory" so the judge can ignore them, but judges still mostly sentence according to the guidelines.
There's some real interesting ones in that mandatory minimum doc. For example, "Refusal to operate railroad or telegraph lines " which was created in 1888. You know there's an interesting story behind that one.
Comments
It boggles the mind that it's even possible to manufacture such a charge. In most European countries you would get the highest sentence for the biggest crime, which although wouldn't be "accurate" either, it's a whole lot closer to what the punishment should be than stacking the sentences up.
And please spare me the "but he would never get this sentence anyway!" argument. If you were in his position and the government would tell you you're risking 80 years in prison unless you fully cooperated with it, you'd shit your pants, too, and you'd probably give up any rights you have just to not risk getting anywhere close to that sentence, or you would even settle and plead guilty to avoid that.
This.
The fact is that "pleading not guilty" is statistically the "biggest" crime you can commit in much of the US (meaning the one you are likely to be punished for most severely). Which of course makes a mockery of most of the protections of the law.
See also:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
Or
"In some jurisdictions, this gap has widened so much it has become coercive and is used to punish defendants for exercising their right to trial, some legal experts say."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-pr...
We are going down that road here in the UK - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crippling-court-c...
Mafia-like legal system. Do what we say or else.
Well, y'see, you were accused of a crime. If you don't admit you are guilty and save us the trouble of due process, well, you'll be punished more severely than if you bent over nice and quick for good ol' Uncle Sam.
Its basically a way for prosecutors to pressure people into plea bargains. It helps them maintain their 90%+ conviction rates.
The other side of that coin is convicted rapists serving 2-3 years in prison ala Sweden.
No, that's not the other side of the coin at all.
1. The issues are orthogonal. You can simply raise the minimum sentence attached to rape, whether you stack sentences or not.
2. The punishment is almost entirely irrelevant. What matters is the recidivism rate. This may just be a difference in morals. I believe the justice system exists to protect society and reintegrate criminals into it, or keep them out if they are not salvageable. I do not believe revenge has a place in the justice system. An eye for an eye makes everyone go blind.
Sweden is just one example. In Germany you get a criminal sentence and potentially preventive detention, which means you get to stay in prison until you no longer pose any danger to society. Given that nobody wants to be responsible for releasing such a prisoner only to have him commit a crime later on, people tend to stay quite a while in preventive detention.
Makes much more sense than labelling people as sex offenders in my opinion.
Sweden defines rape differently than we do. See: Julian Assange.
No we are talking about actual rape reap, including child molestation, as well as early release for all sentences (1/3rd) unless you have behaved very very badly.
What's their recidivism rate like? Nothing else matters, IMO.
Don't have Sweden, Norway's is apparently 20%. US is >50% to 70%, depending on sources.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-s...
Sweden's is closer to the US. for 3 years it's 40% https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statist... I need to find the decade stat's those were in the 60's for men (especially of certain groups).
Norway has a slightly better sentencing system, the sentences are also quite short but not as comically short as in Sweden where they are too short for any effective programs.
Here's a famous case of a man convicted of molesting 100's of children in both Sweden and Norway who got 9 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Andersen_(child_molester) He was convicted on over 60 counts, and it's hardly a unicorn case.
2/3rds, and obviously not including life sentences (although they can of course be commuted to time limited ones, in which case the general rule applies).
There is no life sentence in Sweden like in many other countries.
Well, that's just plain wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Sweden
Have you actually read the entire article?
IIRC the federal government really doesn't offer plea bargains, right? And federal sentencing is pretty rigid, so he probably would have served ~80 years.
Quite the contrary - in 2013, 97% of federal cases that weren't dismissed ended in a plea bargain: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...
No - in fact there's no way the Sentencing Guidelines would have given a sentence anywhere near 80 years: http://popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-ele...
That's correct the USSG pretty much makes plea agreements non-viable because it doesn't allow the prosecutor to offer any substantial leniency on sentencing, mandatory minimums on pretty much every federal crime also make plea agreements pointless.
On the local level plea agreements are used to make prosecuting people cheaper, if you don't agree to it they'll pretty much fuck you up intentionally just to prove a point which is probably even worse than not having the ability to offer them in the first place.
You are very wrong.
First of all, the majority of federal crimes do not have mandatory minimums. http://famm.org/Repository/Files/Chart%20All%20Fed%20MMs%202... is an exhaustive list of federal crimes with mandatory minimums. It's only a fraction of the total number of federal crimes.
More importantly, the effect of the Sentencing Guidelines was that it removed sentencing discretion from judges and gave it to prosecutors. That's because the sentencing range given by the guidelines is influenced by what charges the prosecutor brings, and the details of those charges such as quantity of drugs or amount of property damage. This gives the prosecutor enormous influence over the sentence.[1] (Edited to add: In the same way the prosecutor can influence whether a statutory minimum is triggered.)
Consequentially, the plea bargain rate in federal cases is about 97% whereas in states it is somewhat less.
See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn... for a federal judge's take on the situation.
[1] Technically, since U.S. v. Booker in 2005, the sentencing guidelines are only "advisory" so the judge can ignore them, but judges still mostly sentence according to the guidelines.
There's some real interesting ones in that mandatory minimum doc. For example, "Refusal to operate railroad or telegraph lines " which was created in 1888. You know there's an interesting story behind that one.