Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

While perhaps great in theory, that absolute falls apart in practice.

I was accused of a crime, for which the potential punishment would have prevented my being an active father to my soon to be kindergartner. There was a significant chance given the evidence (basically a he said/she said) that taken to trial I would have been found guilty.

Given the probabilities and the risk, the rational decision for me was to take the plea, only to ensure that I could avoid terms that would have interfered with my ability to be a father.

When throwing the book at you is not an idle threat, and the result would effect other people, you quickly realize that you must consider options that are far less idealistic.



Wait, so assuming you were NOT guilty you're saying that because you were about to be a father they managed to bully you into take a plea, so that you could ensure you could avoid terms that would have interfered with your ability to be a father ?

How's this system perpetuated by the persecution any good, in theory OR practice ?

And assuming you WERE guilty, seems like you have gotten off lighter than you were supposed to?

How's this system perpetuated by the persecution any good, in theory OR practice ?


I he meant this is a prisoner's dilemma type situation. It's great if no one takes a plea but if only you don't you are screwed.


Yes, true. It is one. IMHO the plea itself should be illegal. You either have evidence against someone or you improve the tecniques to gather and understand evidence so that in the future sort of situation is more fair.

Instead, we have this plea system where they make your life a bet where you either lose small or lose big. but you lose, whether you were guilty or not.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: