SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 5, Interesting) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:40PM (26 children)
A friend of mine is in this position right now. He was charged with shoplifting and is not guilty. (I won't go into details but there is evidence of his innocence.) He can fight it, and face stiff penalties, or take a plea deal with known, and less expensive, penalties. As it's not a class A misdemeanor in this state (considering the dollar amount) there is no public defender available and he can't afford legal fees.
If it were me, I'd have no problem fighting it in court but that's me. His first response was to plead guilty to get it over with. Now he's considering fighting it but figuring out all the things that an attorney knows isn't easy. He has to respond to discovery requests from the state, figure out how to get video evidence from the store involved and to present that in court. He needs to understand the law as there is one word in the statute that gives him a defense. He didn't even know how to look up the statute. He also needs to file things in a timely manner though a court may sometimes cut some slack when you're pro se. Where I live, it's been said, prosecutors will routinely drop cases from a class A to a class B misdemeanor to prevent those accused from receiving a public defender.
In short, for the layman to tackle the legal system one has to have to have knowledge, strength and be fearless. For him, a plea deal looks good. If he were guilty I'd agree. Given the facts, he's not. And he can't afford anything on his record. Bad place to be in.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:05PM (2 children)
Shoplifting?! Hahahahah, come on, man. At least man up and do the crime the cool kids do -- vandalism.
Shoplifting is the "mommy and daddy don't pay any attention to me" crime. Unless that shoplifting involves bringing a truck or panel van up to the warehouse and taking off with boxes and pallets of merchandise.
LP (loss-prevention) is no fucking joke in modern retail. They have a Stazi and NSA-like array of human and technical resources at their grasp. Even decades ago, at any given moment, any LP operator could remote in to any store and look through any camera they wished.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)
As someone who has shoplifted, in my case it was the "I can't afford to buy enough food" crime. And I was never even close to being caught. Apparently, this is relatively common, as grocers experience a lot more of what they term "shrinkage" than most retailers: about 1/15 of their inventory is lost or stolen.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:47PM
A friend of mine would steal ~100$ worth of steal and liquor daily from local grocery stores. Now the steaks have anti theft devices on them.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:49PM (4 children)
Regardless of his actions and the results, he will never get any good employment. I hope he understands and plans his future life accordingly.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:48PM (2 children)
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)
You only think it's dumb, because you don't understand how background checks work. The background check looks for "arrest records", not "convictions". The police maintain records of arrests, independently of any court records. An arrest is a permanent record. You will be barred from a lot of lucrative employment based on an arrest record. Unless, of course, you know the right people, and blow the right people. Who you know, and who you blow, count for more than a record sometimes.
(Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:03PM
Even if true it's pretty dumb! :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:50PM
Yep. Being accused of any kind of theft is worse than being convicted of murder for a lot of jobs.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:49PM (4 children)
If you stick it out long enough, the deals will tend to get better because there is more and more pressure from the prosecutors office to get that case closed and off the books. Plus, they don't want to slow down the factory in order to actually take a case like that to trial (the real exception depends on where he "stole" from, as certain store make donations to various charities to make sure cases get prosecuted). But one thing I would do, if he hasn't already, is look up the Criminal Rules of Procedure. The rules for prosecutors and defendants are very different. Additionally, what the defendant has to turn over usually changes depending on what they ask for in discovery themselves. For example, in my state a defendant does not have to turn over any discovery if they don't ask for any. But, your friend may weigh the pros and cons and decide that his own discovery against the prosecutors office is worth it. But I'll admit that I look at crap like that all day and still have to check the rules applicable to my area because they are so technical. Oh and if a trial looks close, be sure to check the Rules of Evidence, as that controls what the prosecutor can actually present, which can be very different from what they threaten to present.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:02PM (3 children)
Absolutely. I will be helping my friend if he wants it and I've already become familiar with the Rules of Procedure for my state. I will be drafting a letter this weekend requesting copies of evidence referenced during discovery documents provided by the prosecutors office. I know where to find the Rules of Evidence and will study those as well. In this particular case there is no upside to taking a plea deal as there is no threat of jail time and the stakes are too high to warrant doing so. There will be a pre-trial conference with the prosecutor which I will attend and we're going to go for some other options besides trial or plea deal (nothing that results in a conviction or plea deal to a misdemeanor charge.) However, we will make it clear that if we can't come up with something we all agree on that we're going to trial. We'll be expecting, and willing to receive, the worst. But we will fight for the best. Now, if I thought for a second my friend was guilty I wouldn't waste my time :)
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:54PM (2 children)
IANAL but I've had to study and prepare for court (pro se) a few times. I believe the plaintiff must file all discovery documents with the court, and prove they have sent copies to defendant. You have to be able / allowed to prove your innocence, and to do that you need all evidence well before court. Anything plaintiff files late, or tries to bring to court that wasn't copied to defendant can and should be inadmissible and the case possibly thrown out.
The US "legal" system is much more of a game of rules than it is a quest for truth and justice. Winning or losing on a "technicality" is horrible (says the man who has won more than once on technicalities...)
This is not advice, just imagining possible paths, but it's possible you do better to be silent and let the prosecution do their thing, keep very close watch, notes, and records, don't give them anything, do lots of research and prepare a good defense. If the court date comes, maybe they will have mis-stepped and you'll win on technicality. But don't expect the court/judge to point out the technicality- you have to point it out, then make "motion for dismissal" on grounds of conflicting / faulty "evidence", etc. I dunno...
If there are prosecution witnesses, and obviously there will be, by all means cross examine them as "hostile" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:09PM (1 child)
Well, I agree with you as far as not showing all your cards. However, it must be known that you're willing to take it to the mat. I'll never appear to operate from fear. I appreciate your input very much and will incorporate it into our strategy, where applicable.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:43PM
Cool, thanks. My only concern is that you're on their turf, and they're very aggressive, gotta win at all costs. They'll lie and cheat because they're pretty sure they'll get away with it. They love intimidating. You can't hide that you're willing to fight, but don't inspire them, it won't help your cause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:51PM (1 child)
If this is true, why doesn't he look for a lawyer who willing to take a pro-bono case and sue for false arrest? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:03PM
Because there was no arrest, only a summons given. Had he been taken to the station that would be different.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:53PM
The state should always be forced to provide you with an public defender if they're the ones charging you. It's yet another example of how corrupt and unjust our system is.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:26PM (9 children)
The Gideon [wikipedia.org] decision applies in virtually all criminal cases, and the state must provide counsel if the defendant cannot afford to hire his own.
If this is a misdemeanor where there is potential for either jail time or probation (cf. Alabama v. Shelton [wikipedia.org]) SCOTUS has affirmed that counsel *must* be provided. As such, Either this is a "violation" (like a moving violation), in which case it's not a "criminal" action and/or the penalties are just fines and/or community service, you/your friend are woefully uninformed, or your scenario is just bullshit.
I suppose that whatever state you are in could be flouting Gideon/Alabama v. Shelton, but if that were the case, rafts of lawyers would be happy to take this case up pro-bono, as it's a clear violation of the fifth and sixth amendments via the 14th amendment.
Gideon has been the law of the land since 1963 and Alabama v. Shelton since 2002.
N.B.: IANAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:51PM (3 children)
Thank you. As stated earlier there is no threat of jail time or probation.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:09PM (2 children)
My pleasure.
All the same, I went back and read the post to which I replied and did not see a reference to what specific penalties were at play.
If I missed that, my apologies. Although it may be instructive for others in a situation similar to your friends' to know what the law is, especially if jail and/or probation are at issue.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by black6host on Sunday March 18 2018, @03:10PM (1 child)
In his case, worst case scenario are fines. I believe up to 1200 USD is possible. However, along with that comes the guilty conviction. If he pleads out he'll still have to pay. So there's not a huge downside to fighting it for him. There are other options we can go for, file it and dump it after a year if no further incidents, drop it to a violation, etc. But a plea deal is not one of them :)
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @12:37AM
That's good. I'm not sure where you are, but where I am, this sort of thing (assuming no real previous criminal record) often gets classed as "adjournment contemplating dismissal" which lines up with your "file it and dump it after a year." I'm surprised that the prosecutor hasn't suggested that him/herself.
It seems odd that the retailer and the prosecutor have been such huge pricks about this. I suspect that there's more to this (not necessarily that he's guilty, but prosecutors, at least around here, have better things to do with their time than pounding on petty theft) than you're saying, or the prosecutor has *way* too much time on his hands.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:56AM (4 children)
In many states, you have to be pretty much homeless to be considered "unable to afford an attorney".
As far as they are concerned, it's fine if you end up homeless BECAUSE you hired an attorney.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 18 2018, @05:07AM (3 children)
And which states might those be?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18 2018, @07:37AM (1 child)
Virginia for one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 18 2018, @08:21AM
An individual whose income is US15,175.00 or less (plus US$5,400.00 per additional household member) is eligible for court appointed counsel in Virginia [state.va.us].
That limiting amount may be increased based on specific expenses that a criminal defendant may have such as medical expenses, child support and certain other expenses.
This seems a bit harsh, but what's even worse, if a defendant is convicted, they are then charged their attorney's fees on top of any fines, court fees and other fees associated with their conviction/imprisonment/probation, etc.
That sucks pretty bad. And is probably a big reason why so many folks in VA choose to either plead guilty without a lawyer or waive a lawyer at trial.
That's pretty unfair, IMHO. But there are other things that make this situation even more unfair:
1. Prosecutors not only have their own investigators on staff, they have the police to investigate for them as well;
2. Prosecutor have wide discretion with respect to charges, indictments and whether or not to prosecute;
3. Prosecutors have significant leeway in the timing of their responses to discovery requests, often holding back exculpatory information as they seek to force a plea bargain.
Defense attorneys don't have (well, unless you have the money to pay for 1) any of those resources available. Especially in cases where an indigent defendant has a court-appointed attorney.
This is supposed to be an adversarial system, but prosecutors have the decked stacked in their favor. Amazingly, a prosecutor in New Orleans even started charging public defenders and their investigators for doing their due diligence in defending their clients. [theguardian.com]
This just points up the general Fuck the poor [soylentnews.org] attitude we have in the US.
And while prison/conviction isn't an issue in civil cases, they can be just as devastating to a poor person, as they don't even have an opportunity to get a court-appointed lawyer.
All of this disproportionately disadvantages poorer people and makes them easy marks in both criminal and civil courts.
We pay for prosecutors and the support systems they have to put folks away, but if an adversarial system isn't fair, it ceases to provide justice -- rather it makes a mockery of it.
I believe that both prosecutors and court-appointed attorneys should be drawn from the same pool of lawyers, with equal time on both sides for all the lawyers. What's more, investigators in the prosecutors office should also be assigned to the lawyers currently on the defense side as well -- with the prohibition that they can't work both sides of the same case.
This would level the playing field somewhat and would likely be a good start in having a justice system that actually produces justice.
But most people won't go for that, because while they give lip service to the idea of a "fair trial" and "justice" they are unwilling to pay for it. Because too many consider those who are poor to be less than human and undeserving of equal treatment. For shame!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @12:42PM
In Georgia, you must have an income below the federal poverty line. Unless you have anything of value you can sell. You must pay a $50 application fee. If you are convicted, you will be charged for the lawyer.
That when someone earning right at the poverty line can easily spend a year's income in legal fees before even reaching trial.