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 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.