Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Bob's avatar

We need for people who commit crimes to be more reliably punished, even if the individual punishment is lighter. We need to reduce the expense of punishment.

The current tendency is for heavier punishment; ever heavier penalties rather than more reliable enforcement.

I would prefer restricting prosecutors to one charge per criminal act.

Most of the people in prison for drug offenses were arrested for violent crimes.

Expand full comment
Eugine Nier's avatar

> Even without those changes, abolishing plea bargaining raises the cost to the prosecution of charging someone with a crime, since unless the defendant decides to plead guilty without the incentive of a reduced sentence there will be a trial and trials absorb prosecutorial resources. If charging people becomes more expensive to the organization that does it the number charged should go down.

Let me ask you this question point blank: Are you actually trying to come up with realistic proposals, or are you just trying to engage in ideological grandstanding?

I liked your book on different legal systems and so want to believe you're arguing in good faith; however, it becomes very difficult to maintain that belief when you keep producing nonsense like the above paragraph.

Given that 98% of cases end in plea bargains, your emphasis on reducing the number of cases prosecuted suggests (even under generous assumptions) you think it's reasonable for 90% of victimful crimes to simply be ignored.

Expand full comment
39 more comments...

No posts