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
There’s never a guarantee when you take something to trial. All it takes is one juror who doesn’t want to find them guilty. All it takes is one bad enough error and a mistrial can be declared. So a plea deal is a (mostly) sure thing and often worth avoiding the risk.
And in some cases, sometimes it’s worth it to not put the victims and/or their families through the ordeal of a trial, making them relive what happened to them and subjecting them to cross examination.
Another consideration in some of the worst cases is the mental health of a jury. In CSAM cases, a jury would have to look at each image/video the defendant is charged with. A deal can be offered to a defendant that still gives them life in prison, but maybe they get some kind of concession like getting to choose from certain facilities, like ones closer to their families so they’re more likely to get visits.
In short, it’s weighing all the variables, including the unpredictability of juries and the need to victimize/revictimize as few people as possible.
Latest Answers