Been listening to a bunch of true crime podcasts lately. More often than not, the person accused of a horrific crime, is offered some sort of reduced sentence, in exchange for a guilty plea. I know part of the reason is to spare the victim(s) and their families the trauma of going through a trial. It just seems pointless when they have so much evidence to convict them and give them a harsher sentence, especially considering how many people rarely serve the full sentence. I get it but I also don’t.
In: Other
Aside from the expense and logistics of actually trying every case, there’s a very real risk of losing a case at trial. It often serves the public interest to guarantee the offender spends the minimum sentence in prison rather than gamble on a possible acquittal or conviction where they get the minimum anyway.
For comparatively minor crimes it’s also a way to expedite the whole process and essentially grant a stern warning to first time offenders. Spending a month in lockup while you wait for the court schedule to earn a conviction and 30 day sentence that’s already zeroed out with time served wastes everyone’s time.
Latest Answers