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: 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