That's the problem. The only way to guarantee serving a reasonable amount of time instead of "he murdered his family and wore their skins to work" time is through plea bargaining, which perverts the justice system.
The "maximum sentence" isn't even the recommended sentence that the accused would be having to plea bargain against, which is determined by the Federal sentencing guidelines.
We went over all of this with Aaron's case, and yet people apparently still refuse to pay attention to how the U.S. legal system works, and instead continue to use MPAA/RIAA tactics when discussing these cases. I have to say it's certainly not very heartening to know that there is seemingly no ideology that won't use propaganda just as soon as it suits their cause. :(
Is it in any way conceivable that the so-called "maximum sentence" could, speaking legally not about averages or practicalities, be applied in these cases?
As far as I can tell, it is legally possible. And that's a big problem. Because it exposes the defendant to an exceptional amount of risk, regardless of their innocence or the facts of the case. It makes people much less likely to actually make use of their rights and to go to trial because no sane person is going to let even a tiny chance of going to prison for a century happen if they have a better out through plea bargaining.
This case is a perfect example of that. If the defendant was facing a more reasonable maximum penalty such as, say, a year or two in prison he would likely be far more emboldened to take it to trial and have his day in court.
Risk is simply a probability, so it's inappropriate to treat a risk with a probability of approximately epsilon the same as a level of risk that could actually be seen on a pie chart.
You're saying that because the risk of hitting the maximum sentence is not actually zero, that the defendant is exposed to an exceptional amount of risk, but this doesn't even make logical sense.
Either way, whatever else defense attorneys might say to the prosecutors, judges, and the public, they know how the risks translate for their client even better than you or I do and have a professional responsibility to inform their client of the same.
So there's no reason for a defendant to freak out about a theoretical maximum sentence, they should only be worried about the one the judge might actually assign after all the arguments and motions are made.
> If the defendant was facing a more reasonable maximum penalty such as, say, a year or two in prison he would likely be far more emboldened to take it to trial and have his day in court.
The maximum should be whatever is most effective for the interests of justice overall, not just whatever is most convenient for whoever happens to be sitting in the defendant's seat that day.
I have a First Amendment right to say and speak my mind, but that doesn't mean I would go picketing funerals with hateful messages like WBC. I have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean I would stand near a school carrying a Bushmaster. And I would certainly never expect the government to provide me a Bushmaster and have me stand outside a school just to demonstrate that they care deeply about my rights.
So yes, by all means, take your day in court if it comes to it, but it's not the government's job to ensure that is the only course available to you the defendant, it's the government's job to secure the blessings of liberty for all of the people.
