Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the now-we-know-who-to-blame dept.

Teenagers are more likely to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because they are less able to make mature decisions, new research shows.

Experts have called for major changes to the criminal justice system after finding innocent younger people are far more likely admit to offences, even when innocent, than adults.

Those who carried out the study say teenagers should not be allowed to make deals where they face a lesser charge in return for pleading guilty. The study suggests young people are more likely to be enticed by these deals, and take what they see as an advantageous offer even when they have done nothing wrong.

Most criminal convictions in the UK and the USA occur as the result of guilty pleas, rather than trial. This means the majority of convictions are the result of decisions made by people accused of crimes rather than jurors.

The research was carried out in the USA, where a system known as "plea bargaining" is utilised, but the academics say their discovery has implications for countries across the world that allow teenagers accused of crimes to receive a sentence or charge reduction by pleading guilty. Specifically, the researchers recommend restricting reductions that may entice innocent teenagers into pleading guilty and making it easier for teenagers to change pleas after they have been entered.

Other research has found adolescents are less able to perceive risk and resist the influence of peers because of developmental immaturity.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-teenagers-guilty-crimes-didnt-commit.html

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:27PM (16 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:27PM (#654052)

    Experts have called for major changes to the criminal justice system after finding innocent younger people are far more likely admit to offences, even when innocent, than adults.

    Why do we need to change the criminal justice system when the problem clearly resides in the education system?

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by isostatic on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:00PM (13 children)

    by isostatic (365) on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:00PM (#654084) Journal

    People admit to things they didn't do because they understand that innocent people go to jail, and the whole process is a gamble.

    If you are not guilty and say "not guilty", there's say a 1 in 4 chance you'll be found guilty anyway (especially if you're black), and your life is over and you get 20 years in a prison system modeled after tribal Pakistan, which thinks rape is an appropriate means of punishment

    If you are not guilty and say "guilty", you may get away with probation or something and have a chance of keeping some form of life together

    • (Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:38PM

      by legont (4179) on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:38PM (#654100)

      Worse than that. As a good attorney would explain to one, only total idiot - probably criminal idiot - would try to fight the system on the odds like that. Jurors instinctively know it and vote accordingly.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:34PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:34PM (#654123)

      People admit to things they didn't do because they understand that innocent people go to jail, and the whole process is a gamble.

      Perhaps I'm stupid then because I would fight tooth and nail to preserve my reputation. If you want the truth, compare statistical results from the Milgram experiment [simplypsychology.org] with these results. [psychologicalscience.org] Feeble mindedness and deference for false authority is a learned behaviour, critical thinking and assertiveness are absolute defences and these are skills that can be taught.

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:03PM (1 child)

        by isostatic (365) on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:03PM (#654182) Journal

        Perhaps I'm stupid then because I would fight tooth and nail to preserve my reputation.

        And have a high chance of losing your job, house, kids and freedom?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @12:01AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @12:01AM (#654625)

          And have a high chance of losing your job, house, kids and freedom?

          Yes - and I would "win" in the sense that my self-respect would remain untarnished.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:13AM (1 child)

        by sjames (2882) on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:13AM (#654341) Journal

        You say that now, as a person who wasn't dragged out of the house and interrogated for many hours without a break then tossed in jail to stew for a while. After a few days of being treated like a sub-human, someone tells you that just one little word can make sure you go home that afternoon. Or proclaim your innocence and that little hellhole becomes your life for the next 20 years.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @12:03AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @12:03AM (#654626)

          You say that now, as a person who wasn't dragged out of the house and interrogated for many hours without a break then tossed in jail to stew for a while. After a few days of being treated like a sub-human, someone tells you that just one little word can make sure you go home that afternoon. Or proclaim your innocence and that little hellhole becomes your life for the next 20 years.

          What? The threat of commencement of legal proceedings is usually enough that interlocutors back down. Stand up for yourself, always!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:14PM (3 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:14PM (#654145) Journal

      You've set the situation up as a completely rational decision. But grown adults can be worn down by lengthy, repetitive, and hostile police interrogation. They can also be lied to by the police: "Just sign this confession and we'll make sure to use it to get the real killer!" Finally, if we are talking about teenagers, they are even more emotional, delusional, influenced by what they've seen on TV, etc., making them easier to manipulate.

      If you do confess, it doesn't matter if you take it back 15 minutes later. Prosecutors will still use it against you in court.

      Here's another way it could go down: You admit guilt because you or your family have been threatened by the real criminal.

      Maybe the solution is for the courts to throw out all confessions that are disavowed. Witness testimony isn't considered very reliable by itself, and confessions shouldn't be either. Unless you give up the GPS coordinates for where the bodies are buried.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:55PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:55PM (#654179)

        I had a case where they grilled a guy for an hour and a half. He never relented the whole time. Finally, they said, "Well, we have a summary of what was said here. Just sign it and we'll let you go." The guy signed it and they put him in cuffs. Turns out that the "summary" was actually a confession and he is charged with all sorts of crimes. The trial had already began before the police finally gave me a tape of the interview (the cop on the stand claimed it was lost until I crossed asking about the flagrant violations of the record laws) and they only did that because the judge threatened a mistrial unless they turned over the tape before then end of the business day. Lo and Behold, I had the recording on DVD in my hands less than 30 minutes later. As soon as I saw the tape, it was over. Thankfully, the guy was illiterate and was adamant that someone needed to read it to him. The cop then proceeds to "read" it to him, complete with the finger along the words. So, agreeing with what it "said," he signs it. BOOM! Cuffs come out seconds later. According to my client, you didn't need to be an expert in psychology to see how fast that jury turned. The impeachment of the prior day's testimony was just the icing on the cake.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:00PM

          by isostatic (365) on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:00PM (#654180) Journal

          However that poor innocent chap still had a horendous time, including being detained for a crime he didn't commit, probably had his name in the papers, accusations about 'no smoke without fire' for the rest of his life, not to mention the cost of a defence lawyer.

          The cops in question should be paying for that -- not the state or city, it should come out of the corrupt cops salary, assets (house etc) and pension, and they should be in jail.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 18 2018, @01:55AM

          With just four words: "I want a lawyer."

          You should never, ever talk to the police for just the reasons you state. You have the right to remain silent. Use that right.

          Don't believe me? Then see what a defense attorney and a 20+ year LEO veteran have to say about it. [youtube.com]

          Don't like being so brief? How about "With all due respect [sir/madam], I decline to answer any questions. I wish to speak with an attorney."

          This is really important, as you need to affirmatively assert your right to remain silent rather than just remaining silent, as discussed in Berghuis v. Thompkins [wikipedia.org].

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:58PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:58PM (#654159)

      That's part of it.

      Another part of the story: Let's say you're a public defender who has 25 cases to work on that week (many are more overworked than that). Now consider the difference in your workload between going to trial and having your client plead guilty. Your salary is a joke, and you don't get paid extra or anything if you work your butt off to win your case. So the person who is supposed to be the advocate of the accused has every incentive to get them to plead guilty, even if they think that client is innocent.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:58PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:58PM (#654281)

      Dude, just like get out of my face! Whatever. If I say yes will you stop bothering me? O.K. O.K., I did it.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday March 18 2018, @02:58AM

      by driverless (4770) on Sunday March 18 2018, @02:58AM (#654330)

      Aw come on, teenagers are always up to no good. You know they've done something even when they haven't. Those odd smells from the bedroom, the funny stains in their jeans, the unexplained absences for "a school project", you just know they're guilty of all sorts of stuff.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:51PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:51PM (#654133) Journal

    The kid is caught doing something wrong. In reality, it's a minor offense. But the prosecutor sees an opportunity, so he and the cops conspire to bury the kid in dozens of charges. The kid is dumb, and thinks that he WILL be buried, so he takes the plea deal. Instead of the single stupid minor offense, he has just become a felon.

    The whole plea deal arrangement is dirty. The prosecutors let real felons walk, in exchange for information. They lock up innocent citizens over bullshit. It's just dirty.

    Judges should intervene in these plea deals, and put a stop to them. Judges should be wise enough to know that many adults don't know better, and kids certainly don't.

    And, no, this isn't something that is taught even in decent school systems. Just maybe in really excellent school systems, that produce citizens who are actively engaged in their government. Hell, we don't even have civics classes anymore, do we? We've replaced a decent system, with a pure shit system. Few high school grads can name their own state capital it seems.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 19 2018, @12:32PM

    by Bot (3902) on Monday March 19 2018, @12:32PM (#654840) Journal

    The problem resides in neither place.

    The comparison is on the same justice system. Between TEENS and ADULTS. Therefore the problem resides in the plain fact that young meatbags are underdeveloped and more pliable. Most authoritarian systems and most religions try to 'educate' the young ASAP so this was empirically known already.

    You meatbags derailed the thread, but it is OK because the rails were very short.

    --
    Account abandoned.