@hawkeye10,
I suggested you visit a county court house, to see for yourself that trials are taking place all the time, and this is your response?
Quote:well, you are the same person who routinely put up 4 rape stories a day in the rape thread and then claimed that this proves that rape is a huge problem, such is the level of flimflammery that you are willing to engage in.
Can you explain the connection, if there is any, between what I said and your response? What has rape, or rape stories got to do with what I said? What "flimflammery" am I engaging in by suggesting you visit a courthouse?
Quote:The fact is that 90% of criminal cases never get to a jury, almost always because they are plea bargained
There are, in fact, trials taking place all the time. Even if only 10% of criminal cases go to trial, do you realize how many trials take place in court houses all over this country every day? Our court calenders are already crowded, and the system could not accommodate a large percentage of cases going to trial. And a plea bargain can give a defendant the opportunity for a lighter sentence, on a less severe charge, as well as spare those using private counsel the expensive legal fees involved with a trial, and the defendant might also have fewer, or less serious, charges on their criminal record with a plea arrangement than they might otherwise.
So, there are benefits to all sides by resolving criminal cases with plea deals.
In an ideal world, perhaps you would like to see all cases go to trial, but we are far from able to build all the courtrooms, and pay all the judges, and D.A.s, and court personnel, and other trial and court costs, to finance such a mammoth undertaking. So, at the moment, we have to live with the system we have.
If your main complaint is that plea deals deprive you of the right to see a complete accounting of the facts, I repeat, go to your local county courthouse and sit through trials. There is no shortage of trials. Most of them are quite tedious to sit through.
Certainly, in the case of drunk driving, it is often difficult, if not almost impossible, for the defense to refute the state's evidence of intoxication beyond the legal limit, so most of these defendants do plead guilty, because they are, in fact, guilty.
Quote: In 90% of criminal cases we the people have little viability on the events that transpired leading up to the charges.
I really have no idea what you mean. Although I note you changed "viability" to "visibilty" since you made that statement.
"The events that transpired leading up to the charges" would include the commission of the crime by the person charged. Why would the people have any "visibility" regarding that? The criminal complaint does describe the defendant's actions that justify the criminal charges, and it is part of the public record. What further "visibility" should the people have at that point in the process? They are only privvy to what occurs in open court.
As you have already said, Thom will likely take a plea deal, and that will deprive
you of the opportunity to hear the full case argued in open court. But, if Thom were to risk a trial, he might wind up with considerably more prison time, and a criminal record with more serious charges, than a plea deal would present to him. Your desire to see a full trial does not override his right to make a decision that's in his best interests. Thom, like all other criminal defendants, has a defense attorney, and it is that attorney, and not
you who is obligated to make sure that his client receives due process in this situation. If that defense attorney can find significant weaknesses in the state's case, he might be more inclined to take the case to trial. But, these are decisions to be made between a defense attorney and a client, and you, Hawkeye, have no right to know "a full accounting of the facts" if they decide against a trial. As much as you might want to hear Thom's side of the story, he has a legal right to remain silent.
