Again though, the defendant's own lawyer is able to instruct his or her client on the actual potential sentence that the defendant is likely to face. It is not a number that can be calculated a priori as it depends highly on the charges for which a conviction is actually obtained, what types of evidence survive (or don't survive) the trial process, and way more factors than can be encompassed in a straight scalar value.
That imprecision in sentencing certainly annoys the technical minded, but it is a feature compared to what happened before, where you sentence depended much more on the judge you were assigned and how the judge felt that day, than on what you were actually convicted of.
Certainly most defendants do plea bargain, but you have provided no explanation why the reason plea bargains occur is related to the maximum sentence quoted for a press release. It is, I would say, just as likely that the reason people take the plea is that even the realistic sentence under the Federal sentencing guidelines, as explained by the defense counsel, is still harsh enough that the plea bargain represents a better deal than playing the acquittal lottery.
Obviously the prosecutor will point out that the maximum theoretical sentence is something completely different, that's their job in the adversarial legal system. If it helps in securing a conviction it's mission accomplished. Likewise it is the job of the defense to explain that the likely sentence is something way different, that a given plea bargain is a joke, that evidence can be thrown out in court, and that entire cases can be thrown out on technicalities.
I'm not sure why you would feel better if defendants went through a kangaroo court where justice is dispensed within days and the convicted are forgotten just as quickly, but I certainly don't see how that would lead to any decrease in wrongful convictions.
Someday we'll give up on this war on drugs, and that will help with the backlog, but even then plea bargains will be more beneficial than harmful to defendants.
"I'm not sure why you would feel better if defendants went through a kangaroo court where justice is dispensed within days and the convicted are forgotten just as quickly, but I certainly don't see how that would lead to any decrease in wrongful convictions."
What the hell? Where did I express a preference for anything like this?
That imprecision in sentencing certainly annoys the technical minded, but it is a feature compared to what happened before, where you sentence depended much more on the judge you were assigned and how the judge felt that day, than on what you were actually convicted of.
Certainly most defendants do plea bargain, but you have provided no explanation why the reason plea bargains occur is related to the maximum sentence quoted for a press release. It is, I would say, just as likely that the reason people take the plea is that even the realistic sentence under the Federal sentencing guidelines, as explained by the defense counsel, is still harsh enough that the plea bargain represents a better deal than playing the acquittal lottery.
Obviously the prosecutor will point out that the maximum theoretical sentence is something completely different, that's their job in the adversarial legal system. If it helps in securing a conviction it's mission accomplished. Likewise it is the job of the defense to explain that the likely sentence is something way different, that a given plea bargain is a joke, that evidence can be thrown out in court, and that entire cases can be thrown out on technicalities.
I'm not sure why you would feel better if defendants went through a kangaroo court where justice is dispensed within days and the convicted are forgotten just as quickly, but I certainly don't see how that would lead to any decrease in wrongful convictions.
Someday we'll give up on this war on drugs, and that will help with the backlog, but even then plea bargains will be more beneficial than harmful to defendants.