i dont get these US courts?

Question

so this is the thing: say that someone murdered another and pleads in court and the judge asks "do u plead guilty or not guilty", if he said guilty, then he lives, if not guilty, then he dies. I dont understand the logic behind that. So if u admit to a crime, the sentence is less harsh, why? You still did the crime, and if there is a death penalty, one should recieve it no matter what. What if the person is not guilty and pleads that? he's basically screwed, is he not? Who difference does it make what you plead, it doesnt change anything. Is it just me or are the courts corrupt in this matter?

Answer 1

Three different steps. First, the plea. This determines whether a trial is necessary. Second, the conviction. This occurs either as a result of pleading guilty, or if convicted of the crime.

The third step is sentencing. Many prosecutors are willing to accept a guilty plea, often to a lesser sentence, to save the time and cost of having the trial. In such plea bargains, one part of the bargain is often the sentence that will be served. But that sentence agreement is made with the prosecutor, not the court.

Sometimes, even a guilty plea will not allow for a plea bargain, and the case will proceed directly to sentencing. If there is not a plea bargain, and there is convication at trial, then sentencing is still the final step.

In the end, the sentence is based on what the laws of the state mandate for whatever the particular crime is. In many states, judges often have very little say in what the sentence will be, based on the conviction. It's all determined by the state laws.

Sometimes there is some descretion for the judge, but never in a capitol (death penalty) case. In such situations, unless there is an agreement as to sentencing with the prosecution, the determination of death or not is made by the jury, not by the judge.

Answer 2

Open4one has it closest. About 95% of all criminal cases in New York County, NY are resolved by plea. I chose that one because that is where Law & Order is set and it is such a great show. The system just does not have the ability to afford everyone a trial. And there is no need to. Let's say you have killed someone. What are the factors? Did you kill your mother in a psychotic rage? Did you kill your wife while your were drunk because she talked to you before halftime? Did you kill a shopkeeper in the course of a robbery? Did you kill someone in the course of gang intimidation? Each of those killings might actually be murder, or manslaughter, but each has its own different factors. In some counties, once the DA's office has decided to charge someone, they will bargain on sentencing, but not on the charge. Other DAs' offices will bargain on both charge and sentence. If someone is innocent, they generally have the opportunity to tell their case to the police and the assistant DA who will attempt to check out the truth of the defendant's story, if only to be able to show that it is wrong at trial. Also, under the Supreme Court's ruling in Brady v. Maryland (once cited on Law & Order), the DA's office must turn over any potentially exculpatory evidence to the defendant. It is probably true that in 95% of the cases, there is no doubt who the killer was (got that from a friend who was a homicide detective). So the only variables are the factors on sentencing. That being the case, it makes sense to try to negotiate on sentencing with the DA before taking your chances with the probation report. The only people going to trial then are the truly innocent and those with such bad records that the DA had no room to negotiate and would have been seeking the maximum sentence for the crime. I don't think that makes the system corrupt. The 95% pleading guilty would be pleading guilty even if we had more judges. It's a complicated answer to a complicated question and I have tried to make myself clear. The system is not corrupt because it depends on professional law enforcement doing their jobs and on the DA's office offering a deal at least as good as the defendant would get after trial. Vick Mackey on the Shield may be a sympathetic character but if a real cop did his job that way, determining guilt and then going about building a case, legitimately or not, around the target, there would be mass dissatifaction with the gulag system.

Answer 3

Well lets see. You say kill someone,i could eat up 100,000 words but a short varsion would be there are many circumstances that could involve a killing,Unless it was a lay in wait,where you intend to murder someone and hide so he can't see you and then kill him, that is a capitol crime punishable by death,every other murder does not demand the death penalty. The sad truth is no matter what the crime,provided it,s not to big of a case to catch the attention of a D.A.orA.D.A. trying to make a name for themselves or a career change to the other side,it;s all about the money and The plea bargan.It's funny really because befor the judge sentences a person they will ask them "has any one threatened you to plead guilty,has any one made you any promises to make this plea". No youre honor just the D.A. If you plead not guilty, and lets just say,ooh, youre actually inocent and lets say they have some sort of evedence nothing to prove that you did it but enough for some D.A. with the best gift of gab that you have ever heard to convince tweleve of your peers to vote guilty, what would you think of the laws of the U.S courts then. If youre alive there is always a chance. Look at all the work that the, prison law project, has done , they have freed many falsely convicted lifers.Your right they're corrupt. Because even faced with factual evidence that your innocent they will still argue for your incarceration.yeah,I meen your going to tarnesh a D.A.'s reputation ,corrupt is a good word I can think of a better one.

Answer 4

Alot of what goes on in and out of court has to do with the plea bargaining that happens. Many times the death penalty will be taken off the table if one agrees to plead out...plead guilty. That person will life without the possibility of parole. Its just how the system works. Sometimes the death penalty is taken off the table if intent can't be shown to a jury.
Since the wheels turn so slowly in most states with the death penalty people sit on death row making appeals for years and years and some die of old age before they get the needle.
I can't imagine a person pleading guilty if he or she isn't...why would someone do that? The forensic evidence would probably clear them if they hadn't done it.
The courts aren't corrupt, it isn't a perfect system but its what we've got.

Answer 5

You are referring to Capital murder charges. The reason in Capital charges that they will give a killer a life sentence if they plea guilty as opposed to death is because: A) It is much cheaper than going to trial. B) There can be a lot of closure to the families of the deceased if he confesses to the murder and gives up the whereabouts of the remains (if not known). C) Believe it or not, it is cheaper to keep a murderer alive in jail for life as opposed to issuing the death penalty because of the Court costs, attorney's fees and appeals.

If you are not guilty of a capital murder then why the hell would you plead guilty? Honestly, when it comes to capital murder there is a reason why the defendant is sitting in a chair doing a plea bargain. With DNA evidence, material evidence, circumstantial evidence and witnesses, who could honestly risk going to trial? Forensic science is still not 100%, but it is damn near it.

Good Luck and Take Care

Answer 6

We don't have enough courts, judges, and prosecutors to try every case. People that are slamdunk guilty of something are allowed to plead guilty to something less, giving them less punishment than if they'd gone to trial, but saving society the expense of a trial.

So basically we have a system that is soft on criminals, so we have more of them, and because we have so many more than the system can handle, we go soft on them to save us time and money.

I'm not defending the system. That's just what it is.

Answer 7

There's nothing corrupt about it. If you admit that you did something terrible, that is morally better (to admit it) than to adamantly insist that you did nothing wrong.

The system is not just based on what someone did, but also on the state of the mind of the person who did it. If you did something wrong, but you know it was wrong and you admit that it was wrong, that makes you a better person than if you insist that you did not do anything wrong.