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
Trials are very long and very expensive for all parties involved, including the state. There is always a back log of cases to be reviewed and tried. If every case went to trial, the court system would grind to an absolute halt, and it already moves slow in a lot of cases.
Another major factor is that you only need one juror to not be on your side. They can have a bias, dislike the prosecution, may want to just watch the world burn or anything. If you get just one person like that, the whole case could be lost.
Getting a plea deal then generally works for both sides. The defendant usually gets a break on their punishment, plus saves time and money on a case that they’ll never get back. The prosecution gets to have the defendant punished in some way, getting some kind of relief for the victim(s) and saving time and money.
Latest Answers