They don't even need to convince a jury. 97% of federal cases and 94% of local ones end with a plea bargain. To see why, consider facing a million dollar legal bill (average), with a likely 7 year jail sentence if you lose, and you're offered 6 months in jail if you confess. You know you didn't do it, but can you afford to fight it and the possibility of the jury getting it wrong?
Given this math, I guarantee you that a lot of innocent people plead guilty because as wrong as it is they simply can't afford to fight for justice.
One had a choice of fighting a ticket and potentially be hit with a $2000+ fine or pay a fine of $140+$43 court expenses. The prosecutor explained that since it is a city ordinance, there is nothing to go on one's criminal record. One could say they not guilty but is it worth it?
I don't think the individual prosecutor was evil. They were doing their best to process everyone as quickly as possible. they were courteous and polite. it seemed they offered minimal fines (at least they said the fines were minimal) and it costs more just to retain a lawyer.
who knows? maybe the police officers have a quota to meet. I can't blame them for following orders and looking for the silliest infractions towards the end of the month.
it just seems that we've optimized the process to a point where I don't really care because I get caught up in it so rarely and get off so easily and the people who get caught up more (have a prior history or can't afford $183 fine) probably don't have much of a voice. but what can I do?
The individual police officer on the street has little influence on how the system works. If we need meaningful change, it can't come from putting our police officers between a rock and a hard place.
Now, I say this as someone very vocal about the blue code of silence. However, there are no easy answers. Any unconcerted attempt to rid our law enforcement agencies of the blue code will result in it getting stronger and create more of this "us vs them" mentality.
We don't need more of that.
Now to answer your question, yes if someone robbed me or killed me I'd want them to be held accountable. However, I think the person giving the order is more responsible than the person pulling the trigger. Is that not so?
> who knows? maybe the police officers have a quota to meet. I can't blame them for following orders and looking for the silliest infractions towards the end of the month.
Hmm. Shouldn't you ? Even more so as an American citizen (I suppose you are) ?
>> One had a choice of fighting a ticket and potentially be hit with a $2000+ fine or pay a fine of $140+$43 court expenses.
The root of the problem is that a choice is even offered. If you got the ticket, why is a court willing to waive the fine for any reason? It's easier for the court, it's easier for the offender, lazy all around. But the real problem may be that some ticket carries a $2000 fine. Imagine if the ticket could not be waived. More people would fight it because it's worth the effort. Eventually enough people might get angry at the high fine and move to get it changed. Or put another way, why is there this infraction with such a high fine in the first place? It doesn't seem that important since they're willing to make a huge compromise.
You are absolutely right. There are many city laws and ordinances that I doubt would stand a constitutional review.
I don't think police officers today are any lazier it more corrupt than police officers in the good old days. We are a bit too harsh on them I suppose. It is just that with an easier access to communication, we can all tell about our particular nuisances which paints a bigger picture together.
If you yell back at someone who yelled at you, should you get a $200 ticket while the other person who started it gets away? Hey, maybe have a plain cloth police officer yell at random people and see who bites and issue them a $200 ticket when they do?
Given this math, I guarantee you that a lot of innocent people plead guilty because as wrong as it is they simply can't afford to fight for justice.