> You can have less plea bargaining and more court overhead, or you can have more plea bargaining and fewer delays for trials.
That sounds like a classic false dichotomy. How about less plea bargaining and more resources for the courts so they don't have require massive delays to deliver justice.
I doubt you'd feel the current system was just if you experienced what Browder went through. How about a little empathy.
Can I ask that before accusing me of lacking empathy you read my whole comment, and not just the part you disagree with? I certainly don't think the current system is just. I simply disagree with you about the best way to fix it. In particular: my argument is that your proposed fix will actually make things worse for the Kalief Browders of the country.
It'll only make it worse for the accused if we stop (as we have) enforcing the right to speedy trials. The real problem is that there aren't any downsides for prosecutors when they overreach.
It's perfectly fair that they get a pass for presenting society's side in a trial but when they get to wield plea bargains for the sole benefit of their own career it's nearly privateering.
Sure, but again, I think that's a consequence of absurd sentencing laws --- laws that are not in fact even reflective of how offenders are sentenced, but leave prosecutors with wildly inflated sentencing parameters to use as negotiating leverage.
That sounds like a classic false dichotomy. How about less plea bargaining and more resources for the courts so they don't have require massive delays to deliver justice.
I doubt you'd feel the current system was just if you experienced what Browder went through. How about a little empathy.